RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01849

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Record (OSR) be corrected to include  the  award
of the Air Force Meritorious Service Medal, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster  (MSM
1OLC), his duty title entry corrected and he receive Special Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel  for  the  Calendar  Year  2001B  (CY01B)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board that convened 5 Nov 01.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was awarded the second MSM 1OLC, but it was  not  included  in  his
records.  Therefore, when his records met the CY01B Lt Col board, this
decoration was not in his records.  In Oct 01, he was unable to review
his officer preselection brief due to a short notice TDY  from  2  Oct
through 16 Nov 01 in support of Operation ENDURING  FREEDOM.   He  did
not return to Hurlburt Field until after the completion of the  5  Nov
01 CY01B board.

In addition, his duty title should be corrected to read “Chief,  Space
Plans and Integration.”

In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a  personal  letter,
copies of the MSM, Special Orders and the officer preselection brief.

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 major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant by the CY99A, CY99B, CY00A and CY01B Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Boards.

On 18 Oct 01, the applicant forwarded a personal letter to  the  CY01B
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board  addressing  his  past  duties  and
responsibilities.

Presently, the applicant’s records have been updated in  the  military
personnel data system to reflect the requested corrections.

OPR profile since 1993 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 19 Nov 94   Meets Standards (MS)
                 19 Nov 95                   (MS)
                 04 Nov 96                   (MS)
            04 Nov 97                   (MS)
                 04 Nov 98                   (MS)
                 01 Sep 99                   (MS)
            01 Sep 00                   (MS)
            20 May 01                   (MS)
____________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO deferred to AFPC/DPPPO (See comments made  by  this  office)
for Special Selection Board consideration.

AFPC/DPAO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended  denial.   DPPPO  agrees  that  his  MSM,  1OLC
citation was not in his record or reflected on his  officer  selection
brief (OSB).  However, each officer eligible for promotion received an
officer preselection brief (OPB) 90-100  days  prior  to  the  central
board convening date.  The OPB contains data that will appear  on  the
OSB at the central board.  Written instructions 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.  If any errors  are  found,  he  must  take
corrective action prior to the selection board,  not  after  it.   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.”  Additionally,
the written instructions advise the applicant to request a copy of his
selection folder from HQ AFPC/DPPBR1, or contact the records clerk  by
telephone in order to ensure the contents of his record  are  accurate
and complete.  The applicant did not  provide  any  evidence  that  he
exercised “reasonable diligence” in attempting to  ensure  his  record
was correct  or  corrected  prior  to  departing  TDY  on  2  Oct  01.
Therefore, SSB consideration is not warranted.

Regarding the applicant’s contention of an incorrect 27  Jun  01  duty
title, our research shows that the applicant wrote  a  letter  to  the
board, dated 18 Oct 01 that addresses his previous  and  present  duty
titles.  He signed the letter as “Chief, Space Plans and Integration,”
so the board members were  aware  of  his  correct  duty  title.   The
military personnel data system now reflects the correct  duty  history
entry; however, we are not convinced this error was the  direct  cause
of his nonselection for promotion.

While it may be argued the missing MSM, 1OLC  citation  and  incorrect
OSB were factors in the applicant’s nonselection; there  is  no  clear
evidence that either negatively impacted  his  promotion  opportunity.
Central boards  evaluate  the  entire  OSR  (including  the  promotion
recommendation   form,   officer   performances    reports,    officer
effectiveness  reports,  training  reports,  letters  of   evaluation,
decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing the whole  person
factors such as job performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and
breadth of  experience,  leadership,  and  academic  and  professional
military education.  As such,  DPPPO  is  not  convinced  the  missing
decoration  and  incorrect  OSB   contributed   to   the   applicant’s
nonselection.   Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  DPPPO  recommends
denial.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated  that  the
statement concerning his four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant
colonel is accurate, but he  contends  it  is  not  relevant  to  this
request.  This request is for the CY01B selection board  and  not  the
previous three promotion boards.  Furthermore, it  is  prejudicial  to
include this information in a recommendation for a SSB,  because  each
promotion  board  is  a  new  opportunity  that  should  be  evaluated
separately and distinctly from previous board information.

He also stated that he was unable to review his  officer  preselection
brief (OPB), and paragraph c stated he received his  OPB  90-100  days
prior to central board convening date.  Although this is  the  correct
process, it assumes he received his OPB prior to going TDY in Oct  01.
In fact, he did not have an opportunity to review his OPB, because  he
changed duty assignments in Jun 01.  His OPB arrived at his  new  duty
station (Hurlburt Field) while he was  TDY  in  support  of  Operation
ENDURING FREEDOM.  He agrees it is his responsibility  to  review  his
records regardless of military duties and assignments;  however,  from
Sep-Nov 01, his  primary  focus  was  to  support  Operation  ENDURING
FREEDOM.  As a result, he did not return to Hurlburt Field until after
the completion of the 5 Nov 01, CY01B Lt Col board.

He respectfully requests the opportunity for his  records  to  meet  a
SSB, since his records met the CY01B Lt Col board without the  correct
documentation.

Applicant’s complete response 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   haws   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.   After  reviewing
the evidence of record, the majority of the  Board  is  not  convinced
that the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in having his record
up-to-date prior to the convening of the selection board in  question.
Applicant states that he was not able to review his preselection brief
prior to the CY01B selection board due to a short notice  TDY  from  2
October 2001 to 16 November 2001.  The majority of the Board does  not
agree.  In this respect, the majority of  the  Board  notes  that  the
applicant submitted a letter to  the  board  president  of  the  CY01B
selection board dated 18 October  2001  commenting  on  his  new  duty
assignment.  Therefore, the majority of the Board believes that if  he
had the time to write a letter to the board  in  question,  he  should
have taken the time to review his records.  Furthermore,  the majority
of the Board also notes that he has not provided  sufficient  evidence
to show he did not receive his selection brief 90 days  prior  to  the
convening of the selection board.  In view of the  above  and  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of  the  Board  does
not recommend favorable action on this application.
_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  02-01849
in Executive Session on 15 January 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

A majority of the Board voted to deny the  application.  Mr.  Gallogly
voted to correct the records but does not wish to  submit  a  Minority
Report. The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 May 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 25 Jul 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Nov 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 02.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 27 Nov 02.






      MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
      Panel Chair




MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                       FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency