RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00004
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY98C and CY99A Colonel  Selection
Board be corrected to reflect his correct duty history and that  he  receive
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of
colonel for the Calendar Years CY98C and CY99A Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  OSBs  presented  to  the  CY98C  and  CY99A  Colonel  Selection  Boards
contained six significant errors in  the  assignment  history.   Because  of
these errors, his duty history did not reflect that he  was  assigned  as  a
member of the Air Staff, but to a field-operating agency.  As  a  result  of
these flawed selection briefs the  promotion  board  members  did  not  have
knowledge of the fact that he has successful tours of duty  at  all  command
levels when forming  their  initial  impressions  of  his  service,  thereby
influencing their scoring of his record.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his OSB  prepared
18 November 1998 and the Officer Pre-Selection Brief prepared 6 July 2000.

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
lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by the CY98C (1 December 1998), CY99A (2  August  1999),  CY00A  (17
July 2000), and the  CYO1B  (3  December  2001)  Colonel  Central  Selection
Boards.

The applicant’s Officer Selection  Brief  (OSB)  for  the  CY98C  and  CY99A
Colonel’s Central Selection Board in the assignment history  for  the  1990,
1991, and 1993 entries reflected the command  level  of  HQOP.   The  MAJCOM
level for the 1990, 1991, and 1993 entries reflected CBT.  The  organization
entry for 1990 reflected DRU and the 1991 and 1993 entries  reflected  Field
Operating Agency (FOA).

According to  AFPC/DPAO,  the  assignment  history  has  been  corrected  to
reflect a command level of HQ.

OPR profile since 1990 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 28 Feb 90             Meets Standards (MS)
                 28 Feb 91                   (MS)
                 28 Feb 92                   (MS)
                 28 Feb 93                   (MS)
                 28 Feb 94                   (MS)
                 28 Feb 95                   (MS)
                 29 Feb 96                   (MS)
                  1 Aug 96                   (MS)
                  2 Jul 97                   (MS)
                 13 Jun 98                   (MS)
                    4 May 99                 (MS)
                   21 Jan 00                 (MS)
                   22 Jan 01                 (MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO deferred their recommendation to AFPC/DPPPO.  They indicated  that
the applicant’s current Military Personnel Flight  (MPF)  updated  his  duty
history to reflect the correct Command Level annotations.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicated that while the applicant  may
argue errors in the command level, major command (MAJCOM), and  organization
in his duty history played a role in his nonselection for  promotion,  there
is no clear evidence that it negatively impacted his promotion  opportunity.
 The Secretary  of  the  Air  Force’s  Memorandum  of  Instruction  (written
guidance) instructs  promotion  board  members  to  “use  the  whole  person
concept to assess such factors as job performance,  professional  qualities,
leadership, depth and breadth of experience,  job  responsibility,  academic
and professional military education (PME) and  specific  achievements.   The
overriding factor must be job  performance…”   The  guidance  charges  board
members to give fair and equitable consideration to all records.

AFPC/DPAO indicated they corrected the command  level  for  the  applicant’s
1990, 1991, and 1993 duty  titles.   The  assignment  history  data  in  the
Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)  is  now  corrected,  however,  each
officer received an officer preselection brief (OPB) 90-100  days  prior  to
the boards convening in December 1998 and August  1999.   The  OPB  contains
the same data that will appear on the OSB at  the  central  board.   Written
instructions are 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 applicant did not show where  he  exercised  use  of  due  diligence  to
discover the errors prior to the P0698C and  P0699A  promotion  boards.   In
addition, written instructions also explain the opportunity  to  communicate
directly with the board president by letter.  The applicant could have  used
this means to inform the board president of changes in his duty history.

In addition, coded information on  the  OSB,  such  as  the  command  level,
MAJCOM, and organization, as reflected in  an  officer’s  duty  history,  is
also reflected elsewhere in the record, in clear text form.   Every  officer
performance report and decoration citation reflects the  command  level  for
each assignment.  They do not believe the minor  errors  in  command  level,
MAJCOM,  and  organization  in  the  applicant’s  duty  history  caused  his
nonselection for promotion.

The evaluation is Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s response to the evaluations 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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice.  At the time the applicant’s  record
was considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98  and  CY99
boards, the OSBs  dated  18 November  1998  and  20  July  1999,  contained
erroneous information in the assignment history.  These  errors  have  been
corrected in the Military Personnel Data System.  However, in view  of  the
fact  that  the  correct  command  level,  major   command   (MAJCOM)   and
organization were listed on his OPRs for the  contested  time  periods,  we
believe that these errors were not so egregious as to  not  provide  him  a
fair and equitable promotion consideration.  In addition, the applicant had
90 days prior to the convening  of  the  boards  to  examine  his  OPB  for
completeness and accuracy.  If errors  were  found,  he  could  have  taken
corrective action prior to the selection board, not after.  He  could  have
also chosen to write a letter to the board president and identify errors in
his duty history.  He did not  do  so.   In  view  of  the  above,  we  are
compelled  to  conclude  that  the  incorrect  duty  history  on  the  OSBs
constituted nothing more than harmless errors.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-00004
in Executive Session on 9 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James E. Short, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 December 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 18 January 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 March 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 March 2002.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 April 2002.



                                LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                                Panel Chair