RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01704 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special
Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY01B  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board (P0501B), with the corrected assignment history on his
Officer Selection Brief (OSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OSB reflected incorrect command levels when  his  record  met  the
P0501B selection board.  Specifically, the assignment history section,
with the 6 Apr 98 and 15 Aug 00 effective dates, erroneously reflected
his command level as “Wing/Base” (W/B) instead of “Numbered Air Force”
(NAF).

In support of his request, applicant  submits  a  statement  from  the
95MSS.  The applicant’s complete submission, with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
11 Sep 86.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major, with an effective date and  date  of  rank  of  1 Aug  98.   He
received 5 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) in the grade  of  major,
in which the overall evaluations were “Meets Standards.”  The  Officer
Performance Report (OPR), closing 14 Sep 01, was the top report at the
time he was considered and nonselected  for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which  convened
on 5 Nov 01.

The applicant's initial  request  for  correction  of  his  assignment
history was administratively corrected; i.e., the command  levels  for
the 6 Apr 98 and 15 Aug 00 entries were changed from “W/B” (Wing/Base)
to “CN” (Center).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPAO states that the applicant’s duty level while assigned  to
the AFFTC was “W/B” (Wing/Base).  However, HQ AFMC/DPMO indicates that
the applicant’s position is a NAF equivalent and should  be  reflected
as such.  Accordingly, the applicant’s duty history has  been  changed
to “Center” (AFMC’s equivalent to a NAF (Numbered Air  Force)).   DPAO
defers to DPPPOO for SSB consideration.  The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluations,
with attachments, are at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO, recommends the application  be  denied.   DPPPO  stated
that while the applicant may argue errors in the command level in  his
duty history played a role in his nonselection for promotion, there is
no  clear  evidence  that  it  negatively   impacted   his   promotion
opportunity.  In addition, coded information on the OSB, such  as  the
command level that is reflected in an officer’s duty history, is  also
reflected elsewhere in the record.  Every officer  performance  report
(OPR) and promotion recommendation form (PRF) in the officer’s  record
reflects the command  level  for  each  assignment.   DPPPO  does  not
believe the administrative errors in  the  applicant’s  command  level
duty history caused his nonselection for promotion and therefore  does
not  recommend  granting  SSB  consideration.    The   HQ   AFPC/DPPPO
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions  and  disagrees  with  HQ
AFPC/DPPPO’s recommendation.  The Officer “Preselection” Brief is  the
top item in an officer’s promotion package.  As a member of the  board
reviewed the brief for an O-5 candidate, they  will  undoubtedly  look
for the level of positions held by each applicant.  Since his position
was coded incorrectly, not finding a position in his brief above,  the
Wing/Base level may have  biased  the  board.   He  believes  the  SSB
reviewing his record now after the corrections have been made  is  the
only way for a just and fair review for promotion.

In support of the applicant’s request, an indorsement by  his  current
commander has been provided.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 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 injustice.  We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case.   However,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force
office (HQ AFPC/DPPPO) and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.
 While it is true the command level on applicant’s  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB) was incorrect at the time he was considered for  promotion
by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, we note  that
the command level for each assignment is also reflected on the Officer
Performance Report (OPR)  and  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF).
Since selection boards review the entire officer  record,  applicant’s
duty history was available for review on his OPRs at the time  of  the
cited promotion consideration.  In our opinion, it is highly  unlikely
the  contested  command  level  information  was  the  cause  of   his
nonselection.  In the absence of evidence indicating  the  applicant’s
record was so  erroneous  or  misleading  that  the  duly  constituted
selection board was unable to make a  reasonable  decision  concerning
his standing in relation to his peers, 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01704.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letters, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 10 Jun 02, w/atchs,
               And 6 Aug 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 Nov 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 3 Jan 03, w/atch.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair