RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02556
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) prepared for consideration  by  the
Calendar Years (CY) 1996C (CY96C), 1997C (CY97C), 1998B (CY98B), 1999A
(CY99A), 1999B (CY99B), and 2000A (CY00A) Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Boards,  be  corrected  to  reflect  his   duty   title   of   “Chief,
Administrative Department, Joint Training Instructor Pilot," effective
1 May 95, and his assignment to the  35th  Flying  Training  Squadron,
Training Squadron THREE (VT-3),  Naval  Air  Station,  Whiting  Field,
Florida;  and,  that  he  be  given  Special  Selection  Board   (SSB)
consideration with his corrected record and an opportunity to  provide
information concerning his job title and positions in a United  States
Navy squadron so that the board can accurately  rate  his  record  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

An SSB review and grade his record fairly in accordance with  AFI  36-
2501 and AFP 36-2506 for all of his above  the  promotion  zone  (APZ)
promotion boards for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel;
and, that the board be given instructions concerning fair and accurate
grading of APZ records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

(DD Form 149 - A1)

His duty qualification history brief did not accurately  indicate  his
assignment to VT-3 and Whiting NAS, resulting in  a  conflict  between
the brief, the  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF),  and  his  top
Officer Performance Report (OPR).

His job title and position within VT-3, a United States Navy squadron,
while commensurate with his rank for a Navy squadron, caused confusion
because of a similar Air Force job title which belongs to a much lower
ranking officer in an Air Force squadron.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, copies of his duty qualification history brief, 30  Apr  96
OPR,  CY96C  PRF,  extracts  from  AFI  36-2501,  and  Navy   squadron
organizational charts.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A1.

(DD Form 149 - A2)

All of the lieutenant colonel promotion boards that he has  met  since
his primary board have violated AFI 36-2501 and AFP  36-2506.   During
these boards, the board members improperly rated APZ officers’ records
in a manner not in accordance with the Air Force instruction.   During
all of these  boards,  the  board  members  were  biased  against  APZ
officers, and they did  not  fairly  evaluate  the  records  of  those
officers who were APZ when compared to officers in the promotion  zone
(IPZ).

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, excerpts of AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-2506, an electronic mail
message regarding briefing slides, and copies of briefing slides.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A2.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that grade  on  1 Feb  93.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Dec 80.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1991 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

         16 May 91                Meets Standards
          2 Dec 91                Meets Standards
          3 Sep 92                Meets Standards
          3 Sep 93                Meets Standards
         30 Apr 94                Meets Standards
         30 Apr 95                Meets Standards
      # 30 Apr 96                 Meets Standards
     ## 30 Apr 97                 Meets Standards
    ### 15 Feb 98                 Meets Standards
   #### 24 Jul 98                 Meets Standards
  ##### 24 Jul 99                 Meets Standards
 ######  1 Jun 00                 Meets Standards
#######  1 Mar 01                 Meets Standards

     # Top Report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY96C  (8 Jul  96)
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

    ## Top Report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY97C (21 Jul  97)
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

   ### Top Report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B  (1 Jun  98)
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

  #### Top Report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A  (19 Apr 99)
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

 ##### Top Report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B  (30 Nov 99)
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

###### Top Report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov  00)
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

###### Top Report at the time he was considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) Lieutenant Colonel
Board; however, the results have not been released.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO indicated that the applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB)
displayed an incorrect picture of his assignment history resulting  in
an incorrect representation of his career progression.   According  to
AFPC/DPAO, the  applicant  was  missing  the  duty  title  of  “Chief,
Administrative Department, Joint Training  Instructor  Pilot,  Whiting
Field,” effective 1 May 95.  Hence, his duty history was not  accurate
when his records were reviewed by the Nov 00 Lt Col  Promotion  Board.
His current Military Personnel Flight has updated his duty history  to
accurately reflect his OPRs.

AFPC/DPPPO deferred to AFPC/DPPPO for the SSB recommendation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration.  AFPC/DPPPO noted that the PDS system now reflects  the
correct  duty  history  entry  effective  1  May  95.   According   to
AFPC/DPPPO, the entry was entered into the PDS in time  to  appear  on
the applicant’s OSB for the P0501B board.  AFPC/DPPPO  indicated  that
the 1 May 95 OPR and the PRF reflected the  correct  duty  title  even
though the OSB did not.  That entry was from six years ago and  should
have also been discovered during the pre-board  reviews.   Since  this
was a minor administrative error, they  do  not  believe  it  was  the
direct cause of the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.

According  to  AFPC/DPPPO,   the   applicant   received   an   Officer
Preselection Brief (OPB) several months  prior  to  each  of  his  six
lieutenant selection boards.  The OPB contains data that  will  appear
on the OSB at the central board.  If any errors are found,  corrective
action must be taken prior to  the  selection  board,  not  after  it.
Also, each officer eligible for promotion consideration is advised  of
the entitlement to communicate with the board.   The  applicant  could
have used this means to inform the board of the incorrect duty history
data; however, they have determined that he did not do so.

While it may be argued that the contested  duty  history  data  was  a
factor in the  applicant’s  nonselection,  AFPC/DPPPO  indicated  that
there was no clear evidence that it negatively impacted his  promotion
opportunity.  In their view, the board had the correct information for
their consideration, and they trust  that  the  data  was  taken  into
consideration in the selection process.  They were not convinced  that
the incorrect duty history information contributed to the  applicant’s
nonselection.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPB recommended denial.  They indicated that  a  review  of  the
records pertaining to the boards in question fail to provide a  single
piece of evidence that would cause them to believe the boards were  in
violation of  any  governing  directive.   Each  board  was  processed
through appropriate Secretary of the Air Force  (SAF)  and  Air  Force
legal reviews before being approved.

According to AFPC/DPPB, each board was charged to use the whole person
concept when evaluating the records.   A  review  of  the  applicant’s
records reveals that he has performed flying  duties  only  since  his
accession into the Air Force; i.e., no career broadening  assignments,
and has not completed an advanced  academic  degree.   In  AFPC/DPPB’s
view, these are critical deficiencies when competing for promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommended denial.  According to AFPC/JA, the  applicant  has
failed to meet his burden  of  showing  material  error  or  injustice
warranting any corrective action.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  indicated  that  he  has  reviewed  the  advisory  opinions
concerning his request for correction of his  records  and  has  found
that they did not accurately address his findings of the facts to  his
case.  He requests that the Board set aside the  opinions  and  review
his original packages and his rebuttal letter in full, and then make a
decision on his requests.  He believes that  the  facts  he  presented
will compel the Board to rule in his favor.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The portion of the application pertaining to the CY96C  and  CY97C
OSBs was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of  justice
to excuse the failure to timely file.

2.  The portion of the application pertaining  to  the  CY98B,  CY99A,
CY99B, and CY00A OSBs was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.

      a.  With  regard  to  the  applicant’s  request  that  the  OSBs
prepared for consideration by the CY96C, CY97C, CY98B,  CY99A,  CY99B,
and CY00A boards be amended to reflect  his  correct  duty  title  and
assignment, we note that the applicant’s duty history  and  assignment
have been corrected administratively. However, we are not inclined  to
recommend  SSB  consideration  with  corrected  OSBs.   The  available
evidence reveals that the incorrect duty  title  and  assignment  have
been a part of his records since the CY96C board.  We find no evidence
that the applicant did not receive an OPB prior to  the  convening  of
that board, as well as the subsequent boards.  Therefore, in our view,
not only did he have ample opportunity, he  had  a  responsibility  to
ensure that his records were correct prior  to  being  considered  for
promotion.  Furthermore, we note that his OPR and PRF  for  the  CY96C
board reflected the correct duty title and assignment,  so  the  board
had the correct information for its consideration.  Therefore, in  the
absence of clear and convincing evidence to  support  a  determination
that the applicant’s record before the original selection board was so
inaccurate  or  misleading  that  the  board  was  unable  to  make  a
reasonable decision concerning his promotability  in  relationship  to
his peers, we conclude that no basis  exists  to  recommend  favorably
action on the applicant’s  request  for  SSB  consideration  with  his
corrected records.

      b.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly  reviewed
and his contentions regarding the promotion boards, particularly  that
the APZ promotion boards were in violation of AFI 36-2501 and AFP  36-
2506, were duly noted.   However,  we  do  not  find  the  applicant’s
assertions and the documentation submitted in support  of  his  appeal
sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale   provided   by
AFPC/DPPB and AFPC/JA  concerning  this  matter.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the AFPC/DPPB and AFPC/JA and adopt their rationale
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or  an
injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request that  an  SSB  review
and grade his record fairly in accordance with AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-
2506 for all of his above the promotion zone  (APZ)  promotion  boards
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel; and, that the  board
be given instructions concerning fair  and  accurate  grading  of  APZ
records 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 23 Jan 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 5 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 5 Oct 01, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 21 Nov 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 7 Dec 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Dec 01.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair