ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


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

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s appeal for reconsideration, he  again  asks  that  he  be
afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the  Calendar  Year
2001A (CY01A) and CY01B Central Colonel Selection Boards  with  the  Officer
Selection Briefs (OSBs) reflecting a 13 May 97 assignment history  entry  of
“X46F4, HQ ---- (--- MED TRANSCOM)” rather than “X46F3, ---, ---___________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was not selected for colonel by the CY01A and CY01B  promotion
boards.  He  subsequently  requested  in  his  original  appeal   the   same
corrections to his OSBs as described above and  SSB  consideration  for  the
CY01A and CY01B boards. However, on 19 Dec 02, the Board  denied  his  case.
For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and   circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of the earlier  decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 8  Feb  03,  the  applicant  submitted  a  request  for  reconsideration,
contending in part that, contrary to the  Air  Force  advisory  opinion,  he
never received an Officer Pre-Selection Brief (OPB) for the CY01B board.  He
asserts this was due  to  the  MILMOD  transition  fiasco  at  the  military
personnel flight (MPF). The MPF told him to look it up on  the  web  because
they could not obtain a product from the computer. He  admits  he  knew  the
information was incorrect, but the local MPF said it was not  an  issue  and
he had been unsuccessful  in  trying  to  get  it  changed  since  1997.  He
challenges anyone to believe that it makes no difference to a record  before
promotion  boards  if  a  lieutenant  colonel  originally  scheduled  for  a
division deputy director position at a unified command in a  “joint”  billet
is really assigned at the squadron level in a position  held  as  a  captain
ten years earlier. No one could see anything in his record that  would  have
kept him from being promoted.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPMAF2 forwarded a letter to the applicant on  1  May  03  regarding
his request for reconsideration, again advising him that any change  to  the
Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)/command  level  in  his  assignment  history
must be accomplished through the provisions of AFI 36-2401. The AFSC in  his
records must match the AFSC reflected on  his  Officer  Performance  Reports
(OPRs). If it is determined that his OPRs contain incorrect data,  then  his
local  MPF  could  correct  his  AFSC/command  level  through  the  Military
Personnel Data System (MilPDS).

A complete copy of the letter is at Exhibit H.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO notes  that  to  date  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  an
application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)  for  review  and
correction of the pertinent OPRs; thus, the career progression he refers  to
in his application cannot be reflected on his CY01B  OSB  until  the  source
documents are first corrected. Although he contends  he  never  received  an
OPB for the CY01B board, the applicant acknowledged he knew the  information
was incorrect. Presumably, this came to light when OPBs were received  prior
to the CY98A  and  CY99A  boards,  since  the  OPBs/OSBs  for  these  boards
reflected the same alleged errors as on  his  CY01B  OSB.  However,  as  the
applicant never took any action to correct the  source  documents,  the  OPB
allegedly not  received  prior  to  the  CY01B  board  would  have  likewise
contained the same errors. The causal factor in  the  incorrect  information
was the failure of the member to act when the error  was  first  discovered,
not the purported failure of the system to provide  an  OPB  for  the  CY01B
board. DPPPO stands by its 19 Sep 02 advisory and again recommends denial.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts that he believed he had initiated the necessary  steps
to correct the AFSC and command level indicated in  the  assignment  history
as instructed by his “experts” at his Military Personnel  Flight  (MPF).  He
tried since 1997 to correct the information through  local  levels.  He  did
not sit passively by and watch his career go “down the hopper.”  He  has  no
“new” evidence to offer  except  a  24-year  career  wherein  he  met  every
challenge and excelled in every capacity. When not selected  for  promotion,
not one “expert” in the Nurse Corps or his chain of command  could  identify
why he did not get promoted. His  opportunity  to  have  a  fair  review  is
tainted by the advisory.

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After a thorough review of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s
submission, a majority of the Board remains  unconvinced  that  he  was  the
victim of either an error or an injustice.  The  applicant  submits  no  new
relevant evidence other than a new assertion, which he could have raised  in
rebuttal when his appeal was originally considered. He now contends in  part
that, contrary to the 19 Sep 02 HQ AFPC/DPPPO advisory, he did  not  receive
the CY01B OPB because of the MILMOD “fiasco.” He also argues that  “experts”
told him the errors were either corrected or did  not  matter,  while  other
“experts” could not tell him why he had not been selected for the  grade  of
colonel. HQ AFPC/DPMAF2 explained to the applicant in their 19 Jun 02 and  1
May 03 letters (Exhibits C and H) that changing his AFSC and  command  level
must  first  be  accomplished  through  the  provisions  of   AFI   36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  because  his  records
need to match the AFSC and command level reflected on his  OPRs  closing  10
Apr 98 and 31 Jan 99. The applicant was advised  to  review  the  procedures
outlined  in  AFI  36-2401  for  correcting  these  OPRs.  As  noted  by  HQ
AFPC/DPPPO,  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  an  application   to   the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board regarding  the  pertinent  OPRs  and,  until
these source documents are corrected,  the  career  progression  he  desires
cannot be reflected on his OSB. The majority of the Board  agrees  that,  if
these source documents are incorrect, the applicant needs  to  exhaust  this
remedy. In any event, regardless of whether or not he received  an  OPB  for
the CY01B board, the applicant has not  demonstrated  he  took  action  when
these errors would have first  come  to  light  before  the  CY98  and  CY99
boards, and again at the CY01A board. We are not in a position to  determine
if these alleged errors caused  his  nonselections,  but  if  they  were  as
critical as the applicant contends, then he  has  not  convinced  the  Board
majority that he exercised due diligence in remedying this 1997  entry.  The
applicant has not taken the appropriate action to amend the relevant  source
documents. He is a seasoned officer  who  has  experienced  selection  board
processes before;  presumably,  he  is  not  a  neophyte  regarding  records
maintenance, instructions to selection board candidates,  and  AFI  36-2501.
We  can  sympathize  with  his  disappointment  in  his  nonselections,  but
competition for colonel is extremely intense  and  promotions  are  limited.
Neither the applicant, his “experts” nor the  majority  of  this  Board  can
determine with any certainty why a promotion  board  may  or  may  not  have
selected a given candidate. In conclusion, the  applicant’s  submission  has
not swayed the Board majority that he should be afforded  SSB  consideration
for the CY01A and CY01B boards  with  amended  OSBs,  and  his  case  should
therefore again be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 4 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                             Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                             Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                             Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.   Ms.
Evans voted to grant, but does not wish to submit  a  Minority  Report.  The
following documentary evidence relating to  AFBCMR  Docket  Number  02-01518
was considered:

   Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant's Letter, dated 8 Feb 03.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPMAF2, dated 1 May 03.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Jun 03.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 03.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 03.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jul 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair