RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02408
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  CY99B  Lieutenant
Colonel Board and in-residence Senior Service School (SSS).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The CY99B selection board  was  presented  and  considered  an  outdated
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, for selection  at  the  30
November 1999 Selection Board.  The Board was presented  the  PRF  submitted
to the CY99A board held 19 April 1999 as indicated in the  “As  Met”  record
provided by AFPC/DPPBR on 20 March 2000 and the unseen PRF did  not  include
an appropriate “job push” statement.

2.  His OPRs and PRFs during his assignment to Los  Angeles  AFB  failed  to
fully address the duties he performed.

3.  His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for  the  CY99B  board  reflected  two
incorrect duty titles and incorrect  command  levels  in  the  duty  history
area.

4.  His training report closing out 17 April 1998 was filed out of  sequence
in his record.

5.  There were typographical errors on his Meritorious Service  Medal  (MSM)
citation for the period 23 August 1989 through 5 May 1994.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  a
letter from his commander, dated 21 August  2001,  Promotion  Recommendation
Forms (PRFs), for the  CY99A  and  CY99B  Board,  Officer  Selection  Brief,
prepared 16 November 1999, Officer Performance  Reports  (OPRs),  closing  4
March 1998 and 4 March 1999, the citation to  accompany  the  award  of  the
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), and other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS


The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 November 1999) and  CY00A  (28  November
2000) Selection Boards.

He was also considered by the CY01B  (5 November  2001)  central  lieutenant
colonel selection board; however, promotion results  are  currently  pending
and not releasable at this time.

The  citation  to  accompany  the  award  of  the  MSM   did   reflect   two
typographical  errors.   The  words  “laboratory”  and   “pry”   should   be
capitalized and were not.

According to AFPC/DPPB, the  Training  Report  closing  17  April  1998  was
misfiled; however, this error has been corrected.

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY99B Selection Board  in
the Assignment History section,  reflected  a  duty  title  of  “ACQUISITION
MANAGER INSP” for the 8 May 1994 and 1 August 1994 entries.

OPR profile since 1996, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  20 Jan 96              Meets Standards (MS)
                  15 Jun 96                  (MS)
                  15 Jun 97                  (MS)
                   1 Mar 98                  (MS)
                  19 Jan 99                  (MS)
                  30 Aug 99                  (MS)
                  31 May 00                  (MS
                  31 May 01             (MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAP indicates that reconsideration  for  in-residence  Senior  Service
School (SSS) selection can only occur  if  the  applicant  is  selected  for
lieutenant colonel by an SSB.  If the applicant is granted  an  SSB  and  is
selected for lieutenant colonel then  he  should  be  reconsidered  for  in-
residence SSS.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPB indicates that the applicant claims the wrong PRF  met  the  CY99B
board.  After the results of a central selection board are  announced,  PRFs
are removed from the Officer Selection Record and passed  to  the  Automated
Records Management System work center (DPSAM),  which  commits  the  PRF  to
optical disk and destroys the original.  After that  point,  PRFs  are  only
accessible to fulfill  “As  Met”  requests,  to  support  Special  Selection
Boards, and for Non-Select Counseling.  As  can  be  seen  in  the  attached
index, the PRF in question was committed to optical disk  on  19  July  1999
and thus destroyed almost 4 months  prior  to  the  CY99B  selection  board.
When that board met, the hard copy of the PRF no longer  existed,  and  thus
could not have been in his record.  They regret the error in  providing  the
wrong copy to the applicant in his “As Met” copies, however the correct  PRF
was on file when he met the CY99B Board.

The applicant also  claims  the  training  report  (TR)  was  filed  out  of
sequence.  Upon examination of  the  record,  they  found  that  the  TR  in
question was indeed filed slightly out of sequence.  The TR  closed  out  on
17 April 1998, yet was filed under an OPR closing out 4  March  1998.   This
error has been corrected.  However, this error in and  of  itself  does  not
invalidate the record nor rise to a level that prejudices  the  record.   If
anything, it would suggest (even if the board members  did  not  notice  the
dates) that the applicant was selected to go to DSMC earlier than he was.

He  claims  that  the  Meritorious  Service  Medal  (Basic)   has   numerous
typographical errors.  A close reading of the citation does indeed show  two
typographical errors:  “laboratory” is not capitalized and neither is  “pry”
both in the second line.  However, the factual data and the award level  are
not affected by the errors.  This office  fails  to  see  how  these  errors
could have negatively impacted promotion consideration.  Furthermore,  since
March 2000 of this year when the applicant claims to  have  discovered,  the
error was never fixed, neither he nor his MPF have contacted this office  to
correct the problem.  He also provides no supporting documentation  to  show
he attempted to correct the problem prior to the board.

Of the three claims within the purview of this  office,  only  that  dealing
with the PRF would have been detrimental to the member’s fair  consideration
for promotion.  The applicant’s claim  in  this  application  is  physically
impossible under the circumstances.  While  the  other  two  claims  are  in
great part true, they are in the context of the record, not  prejudicial  to
the applicant.

The Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPAS recommended denial.  They indicate that there were two duty  title
mismatches between the OSB assignment history and the applicant’s OPRs,  but
it was incumbent upon the applicant  or  organization  to  request  official
duty title changes, which they did not.  Additionally, the board had  access
to the correct duty titles in the OPRs.  The command level inaccuracies  are
also present, but in total present a higher level than  warranted.   All  of
these errors have been corrected.  In addition, the  command  level  entries
are minor, with the actual level of responsibility being  contained  in  the
OPRs, not in the OSD summary.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicate that  the  applicant  provides
no supportive documentation IAW AFI 36-2401.   Paragraph  A16.2.2  (changing
section IV of the PRF) requires concurrence of both  the  senior  rater  and
Management Level Review  president.   HQ  AFPC/DPPBR  provided  an  advisory
stating the correct PRF did meet the CSB and a  copy  of  the  document  was
retrieved from the Automated Records Management System was the same  as  the
applicant provided.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicate that the 90-100 days prior  to
each of the applicant’s  promotion  boards,  he  received  an  officer  pre-
selection brief (OPB), which contained the same data that  would  appear  on
his OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB  and
given to  the  officer  before  the  central  selection  board  specifically
instruct him to carefully examine the brief for completeness  and  accuracy.
The instructions also provide addresses, and in most  cases,  phone  numbers
for  each  area  responsible  to   assist   the   officer   who   identifies
discrepancies.  If any errors are found,  he  must  take  corrective  action
prior to the selection board, not after it.  The  instructions  specifically
state, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board if,  in
exercising reasonable diligence, the  officer  should  have  discovered  the
error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely  corrective
action.”   The  written  instructions  also  explain  the   opportunity   to
communicate with the board president.  The applicant could  have  used  this
means to inform the board president of the correct effective  date  for  his
most recent duty title.  However, they have verified the  applicant  elected
not to exercise this entitlement.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 December 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the  applicant  should  be
provided  SSB  consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  We note the Air Force acknowledges  that  the  contested  Training
Report was out of order in his officer selection  folder,  that  there  were
two typographical errors on his MSM, and that corrections have been made  to
his OSB regarding the Command Level of  several  assignments.   However,  in
the absence of sufficient evidence  to  support  a  determination  that  the
applicant’s record before  the  original  selection  was  so  inaccurate  or
misleading  that  the  board  was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision
concerning his promotability in  relationship  to  his  peers,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.  In view of the foregoing, we are compelled  to  conclude  that
these constitute harmless errors.  In summary, we do  not  find  applicant’s
numerous assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree  with
the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rational expressed as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant failed to sustain his burden  of
establishing the existence of either an error  or  an  injustice  warranting
favorable action on these requests.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________




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 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                  Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
                  Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAP, dated 30 October 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPBR, dated 9 November 2001, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPAS, dated 6 December 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 December 2001.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 December 2001.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 December 2001.




                                WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                Panel Chair