RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03239
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Per the applicant’s request, his initial application was withdrawn  on
29 Nov 99.  He has resubmitted his application, requesting that he  be
considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the CY98B (1 Jun 98) and CY99A (19 Apr 99)  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards, with his corrected record.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  A “K” prefix should be added to his Duty Air Force Specialty  Code
(DAFSC) of 2255V for the periods 3 Mar 91 through 31 Mar 92.

2.  The  inconsistencies  between  the  duty  titles  on  his   Office
Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  and  those   listed   on   his   Officer
Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to his consideration for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0498B central board have  been
administratively corrected.  However, he was denied SSB consideration.

3.  His OPR closing 12 Mar 96 was submitted on the wrong form and  was
the top report at the time he was  considered  for  promotion  by  the
P0598B selection board.  The 12  Mar  96  OPR  has  subsequently  been
replaced  with  a  corrected  copy;  however,  he   was   denied   SSB
consideration.

In support of his request, applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
copies of  his  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  and  additional
documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.   These
documents are appended at Exhibit A. (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  as  2
Jun 82.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major,
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Jun 94.

The applicant's initial  request  for  correction  of  his  assignment
history was administratively corrected.  No correction was made to add
the “K” prefix to his DAFSC for the periods 3 Mar 91 through 31 Mar 92
(refer to Exhibit C and G).

Applicant's OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 2 Mar  91,
follows:

      Period Ending    Evaluation

           2 Mar 91    Meets Standards (MS)
           2 Jan 92         MS
      #    2 Jan 93         MS
           2 Jan 94             MS
           2 Jan 95         MS
      ##  12 Mar 96         MS
      ### 12 Mar 97         MS
      #### 6 Jan 98         MS
      #####6 Jan 99             MS
       1 Sep 99       MS

# Top report at the time he was considered and selected for  promotion
to major by the CY93B Central Lieutenant Major Board,  which  convened
on 6 Dec 93.

## Top report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY96C  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 8 Jul 96.

### Top report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY97C  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 21 Jul 97.

#### Top report at the time he was  considered  in-the-promotion  zone
(IPZ) and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98.

##### Top report at the time  he  was  considered  above-the-promotion
zone (APZ) and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the
CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99.

The applicant’s appeal for correction of his OPR closing  12  Mar  96,
under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and  granted
by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 14 Jan  00.   However,
the applicant’s request for SSB consideration was denied.

Information maintained in the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals that
the applicant has been nonselected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by three selection boards (CY98B, CY99A and  CY99B)
and that he currently has an established date of separation of 30  Jun
2006.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Reports and Queries Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, stated that a  review
of source documents  revealed  numerous  inconsistencies  between  the
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and  the  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB).  DPAPS1 administratively  corrected  applicant’s  duty  history
(refer to Exhibit C for review of the corrections).

The Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  DPPPA stated that all of the  contested  duty
titles have been present on the applicant’s  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) since prior to his consideration and selection for promotion  to
the grade of major by the CY93B (3 Dec  93)  Central  Major  Selection
Board -  some  five  plus  years  ago.   DPPPA  understands  that  the
applicant may not have had access  to  his  Officer  Selection  Record
(OSR) prior to  his  consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel in-the-promotion zone (IPZ); however, he  did  have
access to his Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG).  Had  the  applicant
compared the OPRs filed in his UPRG with earlier OPBs, he  would  have
discovered the inconsistencies and could have taken steps  to  correct
the information prior to his promotion consideration  by  the  earlier
boards.

DPPPA disagrees with the assertion that the duty title inconsistencies
could have been reviewed by the P0598B  board  as  a  lack  of  career
progression.  The selection board had the applicant’s entire OSR  that
clearly outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on  active
duty.  DPPPA is not  convinced  the  discrepancies  between  the  duty
titles on his OPRs and OSB caused the applicant’s nonselection.  DPPPA
is  therefore  strongly  opposed  to  the  applicant   receiving   SSB
consideration on this issue.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that  he
first discovered the duty title  inconsistencies  was  in  1993  while
visiting HQ AFPC.   It  was  at  that  time  that  an  AFPC  personnel
specialist told him that duty titles on the Officer Preselection Brief
(OPB) did not necessarily have to match those on his OPRs.  He had  no
reason to doubt the accuracy of his OPB prior to his telephone  record
review with a nonselect counselor in Sep  98.   Recent  feedback  from
promotion board members indicates that the most important  element  is
the PRF, followed by the Officer Selection Brief (OSB)  (the  document
in question) and then perhaps the top two or three OPRs.  The  OSB  is
the single document providing board members an overall  view  of  your
career.  Additionally, board members seldom review the  front-side  of
OPRs (where duty titles are listed) but rather focus on the  back-side
to evaluate the overall assessment of  the  individual.   The  records
review conducted in Dec 98 corrected the RF-4C “K” prefix but not  the
F-111F.  AFPC stated there was no documented basis  for  this  request
even though it is mentioned several times on the front-side of his OPR
closing 2 Mar  91.   He  has  attached  two  certificates  of  aircrew
qualification and a flying history report from his flight  records  to
further verify his instructor qualification.  The bottom line  is  his
record was not  accurate  when  he  met  the  P0598B  selection  board
(Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the additional Air Force  evaluations
were provided.

The  Directorate  of  Assignments,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPS,  stated  that  the
applicant’s DAFSC is listed as “2255V” on his OPR closing 2 Mar 91 and
is mirrored in the personnel data system (PDS) for this  time  period.
DPAPS cannot concur with the correction of the DAFSC  to  include  the
“K” prefix until such time as the OPR is corrected.  DPAPS recommended
the Board determine if amending the DAFSC on the OPR closing 2 Mar  91
is warranted (Exhibit G).


The Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, agrees with DPAPS that  the
DAFSC in the PDS  cannot  be  changed  until  the  2  Mar  91  OPR  is
corrected.  In reviewing the applicant’s DD Form 149, DPPPA noted that
the applicant requested the DAFSC be  corrected  to  reflect  the  “K”
prefix for the period 3 Mar 91 through 31 Mar 92.  As such, it appears
the 2  Jan  92  OPR  would  also  require  correction.   However,  the
applicant has never appealed to have either OPR corrected  to  reflect
the “K” prefix.  Until the applicant challenges the  OPRs,  DPPPA  can
only conclude they are accurate as written (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that  it  is
interesting to note that AFPC is no longer stating that he should  not
be awarded the “K” prefix, only that it would cause a  discrepancy  to
do so without correcting the source document (Exhibit J).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or  injustice.   With  regard  to  the
requested Duty Air Force Specialty Code  (DAFSC)  correction,  we  are
unconvinced by the  documentation  provided  that  the  applicant  was
performing duties in  an  authorized  “K”  prefix  position.   Lacking
evidence to the  contrary,  it  is  our  opinion  that  the  DAFSC  is
accurately  reflected.   We  note  that  the  problems  the  applicant
identified concerning his  assignment  history  were  administratively
corrected and that the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) corrected
his OPR closing 12 Mar 96. As to the OPR correction, we did  not  find
this administrative correction to be of such significance as to  merit
promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB).   Inasmuch
as the applicant acknowledged that he did in fact  discover  the  duty
history inconsistencies in 1993, we believe that, regardless  of  what
he was told by a personnel specialist, it was his  responsibility,  at
that time, to pursue the record corrections.  It is our  opinion  that
the applicant failed  to  exercise  proper  diligence  to  ensure  his
records were corrected in a timely manner.  Further,  since  selection
boards evaluate the entire officer record,  applicant’s  duty  history
was available for review on  the  OPRs  when  he  was  considered  for
promotion by the CY98B and CY99A selection boards.   In  view  of  the
above and absent persuasive evidence  indicating  his  record  was  so
erroneous or misleading that the  duly  constituted  selection  boards
were unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his  standing  in
relation to his peers, we find that the administrative errors were not
of such magnitude as to warrant SSB consideration.  Therefore,  absent
sufficient 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 30 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  Letter from applicant, dated 16 Nov 00, with
                 atchs, and DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 14 Dec 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 Jan 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Jan 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 15 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS, dated 16 Aug 99.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 10 Sep 99.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Sep 99 and 1 Oct 99.
   Exhibit J.  Letter from applicant, dated 25 Oct 99.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair