RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01461
                 INDEX CODE:  131.01
                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY99B  (30
Nov 99) (P0599B) and CY00A  (28  Nov  00)  (P0500A)  central  lieutenant
colonel selection boards due to incorrect duty history  entries  in  his
record.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records that met the CY99B and CY00A  lieutenant  colonel  selection
boards had numerous errors in the duty history section.  The errors have
since been corrected and show  a  more  accurate  account  of  his  duty
history.

In support of his application, the applicant submits a personal  letter,
a copy of the Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending  15
Aug 93, an AF Form 942, copies of old Single Uniform  Retrieval  Formats
(SURFs) with duty title errors  and  a  new  SURF  with  corrected  duty
titles, and copies of his  letter  to  the  LtCol  Selection  Board  and
supportive statements by officers in his rating chain.  The  applicant's
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of  major
with a date of rank of 1 June 1996 and a total active  federal  military
service date (TAFMSD) of 19 September 1984.

The  applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for  promotion   to
lieutenant colonel by the P0599B and P0500A Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Boards which convened on  30  November  1999  and  28 November
2000, respectively.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAO states that the applicant’s record was  not  accurate  when
his records were  reviewed  by  the  November  2000  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board.  The duty information was subsequently updated  by  the
applicant’s servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) on 4  April  2001.
The DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO, indicates that the applicant  has  provided  no  evidence
that his nonselection for promotion resulted from the eight-  and  nine-
year-old erroneous duty titles.  The applicant contends that  it  wasn’t
until he sat down with a previous board member that the corrections were
pointed out and that the errors could have determined if he was promoted
or not.  DPPPO states the applicant received nonselect counseling  after
his P0500A consideration, however he failed to state what the  counselor
advised,  or  strengths  and  weaknesses  she  pointed  out  during  the
counseling session.  DPPPO also noted that the applicant’s duty  history
was incorrect in his record when the CY95A central major selection board
considered and selected him for promotion to the grade of major.   DPPPO
states that the applicant’s duty history is now correct,  and  does  not
believe the corrections to administrative  errors  from  1992  and  1993
warrant SSB consideration.  The DPPPO evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states the inference
that he did not make correction to his record based on the  preselection
brief he received 90-100 days prior to the SSB is misleading due to  the
fact that his records were already up against an  SSB  and  the  results
pending.  He further states that during the nonselection  counseling  he
was not advised on any irregularities, other than the fact that since it
was an above the promotion zone (APZ) promotion, the  only  way  to  get
promoted is with a definite promote (DP).  The message  he  clearly  got
from the evaluation was that his case should be  denied  and  if  he  is
serious he will rebut at the next level.   He  is  serious  about  being
given fair and impartial consideration for promotion based on is entire,
corrected record.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  Although the 1992 and  1993  duty
history entries were inaccurate on the applicant’s OSB at the  time  he  was
considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  in  1999  and
2000, we do not believe this fact,  in  and  by  itself,  is  sufficient  to
warrant approval of the requested relief.  The available evidence  indicates
that the position he  held  during  the  contested  periods  was  accurately
reflected on his performance report closing 15 August  1993  and  that  this
report was available to the selection boards in  question.   Therefore,  the
selection boards did have access to the cited information. Furthermore,  and
more importantly, we have seen no evidence that the error on his OSB  caused
his record to be so  erroneous  or  misleading  that  the  duly  constituted
selection, vested with the discretionary authority to  select  officers  for
promotion,  was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision  concerning   the
applicant’s promotability when compared to his  peers.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

____________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented   did   not
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice;  that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and  that  the
application will only be  reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

____________________________________________________________________

The following members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 November 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 20 Aug 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Aug 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response dated 2 Nov 01.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair