RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01518
            INDEX CODE 131.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A)
and CY01B  Central  Colonel  Selection  Boards  reflect  a  13 May  97
assignment history entry of “X46F4, HQ --- (---- MED TRANSCOM)” rather
than “X46F3, ---, AEROMED EVAC SQ,” and he be  considered  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01A and CY01B boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OSBs do not accurately demonstrate his  career  progression.  They
show an incorrect Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  and  assignment
history while he was assigned to a very senior staff medical  position
at a unified command headquarters. He lobbied unsuccessfully  to  have
this  correction  made  the  entire  time  he  was  at  ----  and  the
personnel/manpower  reply  was  always  that  it  would  not  make   a
difference. Having a  “Definitely  Promote”  on  both  his  below-the-
promotion-zone (BPZ) opportunities and  not  get  promoted  tells  him
there is a difference.  He has the full support of the senior  leaders
he worked with at -----.

The 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 with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 96.  He
is assigned to the ---- Medical Operations Squadron (---) at ---  AFB,
--.

During the period in question, he was assigned to the ---  Aeromedical
Evacuation Squadron (---), --- AFB, -, with duty at ---Surgeon General
(---), --- AFB, --.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  by  the
CY01A and CY01B Central Colonel Selection Boards, which convened on  8
Jan 01 and 3 Dec 01, respectively. The Promotion Recommendation  Forms
(PRFs) for these boards have an overall recommendation  of  “Promote.”
The 13 May 97 entry on the OSBs indicates “X46F3, Deputy Director, ----
/Chief Ops Div, ---, AEROMED EVAC S.” The Officer Performance  Reports
(OPRs) closing 10 Apr 98 and 31 Jan 99 reflect  the  same  AFSC,  duty
title and command. The OPR for the period 1 Feb 99 through 31 Jan  00,
which was on file for both boards, has an  AFSC  of  “X46F4,”  a  duty
title of “Deputy  Director  ---/Chief,  Operations  Division,”  and  a
command of “--- MED TRANSCOM.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPMAF2 advised the applicant by letter dated 19 Jun  02,  that
his request for a correction of an AFSC and command level indicated in
his assignment history must be accomplished through the provisions  of
AFI 36-2401. This was because the AFSC in his records must  match  the
AFSC reflected on the OPRs closing out 10 Apr 98 and 31  Jan  99.   If
his OPRs contain incorrect data, his local Military  Personnel  Flight
(MPF) can correct his AFSC and organization, command and  location  in
the military personnel data system.

A complete copy of HQ AFPC/DPMAF2’s  letter  to  the  applicant,  with
attachment, is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO notes each eligible officer  for  the  CY01A  and  CY01B
boards received an officer pre-selection brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior
to the boards’ convening dates.  It was the applicant’s responsibility
to notify the board of the  incorrect  duty  assignment  entry  if  he
believed it to be important to his promotion consideration or he could
communicate by letter directly with the  board  president.  They  have
verified that he elected not to exercise either entitlement.  While it
may be argued that the incorrect  duty  title  was  a  factor  in  his
nonselection, there is no clear evidence  that  this  data  negatively
impacted his promotion opportunity.  DPPPO is not convinced  that  the
administrative errors in his  duty  assignment  from  five  years  ago
contributed   to   his   promotion   nonselection.   Therefore,    SSB
consideration is not warranted. Further, his OPRs closing  10  Apr  98
and [31 Jan 99] reflect an AFSC of X46F3 and the command level as ---.


A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 27 Sep 02 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice  to  warrant   altering   the
applicant’s OSB and affording him SSB consideration.  The  applicant’s
contentions and the supporting statements are duly noted; however,  we
do not find these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.  As
indicated by AFPC/DPMAF2, the AFSC in question  corresponds  with  the
AFSC reflected on the 10 Apr 98 and 31 Jan 99 OPRs.  Further,  if  the
AFSC and command level are incorrect on these documents, these  errors
were discoverable when they occurred. The applicant has not shown that
he exercised reasonable diligence or that  the  alleged  five-year-old
errors adversely affected  his  promotion  opportunity.  We  therefore
agree with  the  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or
an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 19 December 2002 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                 Ms. Diane Arnold, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01518 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPMAF2, dated 19 Jun 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 19 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Sep 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair