RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01610
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  major  by  special
selection board (SSB) for the CY00B  Central  Major  Selection  Board
with the following corrections made to his records:

        a.  Inclusion of a second Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM)
he had been awarded.

         b.  Inclusion  of  information  documenting   his   superior
performance while at Undergraduate Missile Training.

        c.  Correction of his duty title  on  his  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB) to match the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing  31
May 99.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force personnel system failed to ensure that the AFCM he  was
awarded closing out in 1995 was included in his records.

A final OPR was not accomplished on him when he was reassigned from --
- Air Force Base resulting in a report being accomplished covering an
18-month period.  Additionally, his commander wrote this report  with
only 60 days supervision covering activities at another base and on a
weapons system that he had no knowledge of.

There is no Training Report  in  his  record  covering  his  superior
performance while  at  Undergraduate  Missile  Training.   With  this
training having occurred almost nine years ago, it is not possible to
locate or reaccomplish this document.  For this reason, copies  of  a
“Top Performer” certificate and three letters of  recognition  should
be placed in his records.

The duty title on  his  OSB  did  not  accurately  reflect  his  duty
progression.  It left out his duty as an assistant flight  commander.
This omission reflected a lack of normal career and duty  progression
from a line instructor to an assistant flight commander.

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

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 15 Apr 91.  He
has three nonselections for promotion to the grade of  major  by  the
CY00B (18 Sep 00), CY01A (18 Jun 01, and CY02A (19 Feb 02) boards.  A
review of his last ten  OPRs  indicates  overall  ratings  of  “meets
standards.”  According to the military  personnel  data  system,  the
applicant has two awards of the Air Force  Commendation  Medal,  with
the most recent closing out in 1998.  The OSB reviewed by  the  CY00B
selection board reflects only one award of the AFCM.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO advises that the applicant’s OSB for the CY01 Central Major
Selection Board contained erroneous duty history information.

They   defer   to   AFPC/DPPPO’s   recommendation    regarding    SSB
consideration.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE advises that the applicant’s officer selection record  was
complete  for  the  CY00B  promotion  selection  board.   While   the
applicant contends the 20 May 96 OPR on file covering 18 months  does
not accurately reflect his  performance,  he  states  the  report  is
“legal.”  The records custodian at the time initiated  tracer  action
to determine if a report was missing; however, it was determined that
no report was required, due to insufficient supervision.  As such the
applicant was appropriately projected for an “Annual” report  by  the
first rater to obtain 60 days supervision.

The applicant states that he is missing  an  AF  Form  475,  TR,  for
attending missile training.  However, prior to 1 Aug 95, all training
reports designed to upgrade or enhance an officer’s qualifications in
a utilization field were completed on AF Form 77.  These AF Forms  77
were not placed in the officer’s selection record, but given  to  the
member’s rater for inclusion in the next OPR.  Therefore, there is no
TR  missing  from  the  officer’s  selection  record.   Further,  the
applicant’s 20 Nov 93 OPR reflects that the applicant was in the  top
10 percent of his class and received “Top Performer” honors.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration.  They accept the  findings  in  the  other  Air  Force
evaluations.  While it may be argued that the missing  citation,  and
incorrect OSB were factors in the applicant’s nonselection, there  is
no  clear  evidence  that  they  negatively  impacted  his  promotion
opportunity.  Central Boards evaluate the entire OSR.   Although  the
decoration was not present in his OSR for the Board’s review and  the
16 Mar 99 duty title entry was incorrect, the selection board had his
entire officer selection record at their  disposal  during  promotion
consideration.  The correct  duty  title  was  on  his  OPR  and  the
majority  of  the  accomplishments  mentioned  in  the  AFCM,   Basic
citation, are also reflected on the applicant’s OPRs  for  that  time
period.  They are  not  convinced  that  the  missing  five-year  old
decoration  and  the  three-year  old  administrative  error  in  his
assignment history contributed to the  applicant’s  nonselection  for
promotion.

Additionally, the officer preselection brief (OPB) is  sent  to  each
officer approximately 90-100 days prior to a  selection  board.   The
OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the  central  board.
Written instructions attached to the  OPB  instruct  the  officer  to
carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If errors
are discovered, the officer must take corrective action prior to  the
selection board--not after.   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  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  that  he
exercised “reasonable diligence” in the maintenance of  his  records.
In fact, he states that it wasn’t until Mar  02  when  he  was  going
through his personal files at home that he discovered  the  paperwork
for the AFCM, Basic.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by rebutting  the
reasons given by AFPC as to why his request  should  be  denied.   He
indicates that since the AFCM he was awarded was never  presented  to
him, he was not aware of it and would have had no reason to  question
why it was not in his record.  Applicant also takes issue with AFPC’s
failure  to  take  any  responsibility  for  his  incorrect  records.
Finally, the applicant does not agree with AFPC’s assessment that the
mistakes in his record played a small role in  his  nonselection  for
promotion.  The bottom line is that his records that  met  the  CY00B
major selection board were incorrect.  He maintains that as  soon  as
he discovered errors in his record, he had  them  corrected.   He  is
simply asking for the opportunity to have his  correct  and  accurate
record reviewed for promotion to major.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number  02-01610
in Executive Session on 23 January 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 22 May 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Jul 02.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
    Exhibit G.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 31 Oct 02.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair