RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02020
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXX     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 CY01A Central  Major  Selection  Board
(18 Jun 01).

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Assignment History section of his officer selection brief  (OSB)
contained the following errors:

        a.  His Duty  Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (DAFSC)  for  the
effective date 1 May 01 is missing the “K” prefix,  which  certifies
him as an instructor.

        b.  His DAFSC for the effective date of 14 Jun  96  includes
an incorrect “Q” prefix certifying him as  an  evaluator,  which  he
never was.

        c.  The entry effective 1 Nov  94  contains  incorrect  data
under the “Organization” and “Command” headings.

He conducted a review of his records in Dec 00  in  preparation  for
his upcoming  promotion  board.   After  noting  all  of  the  above
discrepancies, he initiated action to get them  corrected.   Despite
his efforts, the errors were not corrected before  his  records  met
the board.  As of 17 Jun 02, all  of  the  discrepancies  have  been
corrected with  the  exception  of  the  “K”  prefix  on  his  DAFSC
effective 1 May 01.

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of
captain.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
4 Jan 92.  A review of his  last  ten  officer  performance  reports
(OPRs) reflects overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant
was considered and not selected for promotion to major by the  CY01A
Central Major Selection Board.

__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO indicates that the applicant’s  local  military  personnel
flight (MPF) has updated the applicant’s DAFSC to  include  the  “K”
prefix.  They defer to AFPC/DPAO regarding his request for an SSB.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   Although
the applicant contends that he began action to correct  his  OSB  in
Dec 00, the only  documentation  he  has  submitted  indicates  that
action was not taken until a few weeks before the board  and,  after
the board was released.

There  is  no  clear  evidence  that  the  incorrect  duty   entries
negatively impacted the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  Although
his DAFSC did not reflect  the  “K”  prefix  certifying  him  as  an
instructor, his promotion recommendation form  (PRF)  addresses  the
fact that he was involved in  the  training  of  personnel.   It  is
questionable whether the “Q” prefix is correct or  not.   They  note
that the applicant’s OPR for that  period  still  reflects  the  “Q”
prefix.  As for the incorrect data  in  the  1  Nov  94  entry,  the
applicant’s OPRs for that period  properly  reflected  his  unit  of
assignment and duty location.  Therefore, the  board  was  aware  of
this information.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant
on 22 Nov 02 for review and comment within  30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.   A  majority  of  the
Board believes that the applicant exercised reasonable diligence  to
ensure that his records were corrected prior to the promotion  board
convening on 18 Jun  01.   They  were  primarily  persuaded  by  the
supporting statement from the applicant’s  Operations  Officer  that
the applicant started action  to  correct  his  records  almost  six
months prior to the board convening.  In view  of  this,  the  Board
majority recommends that the applicant’s  records  be  corrected  as
indicated below.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY01A Central Major
Selection Board be corrected in the “Assignment History” section as
follows:

            a.  Change the DAFSC effective 1 May 01 to K13S3E.

            b.  Remove the “Q” prefix from the DAFSC effective 14
Jun 96 and change to read 13S3D.

            c.  Change the “Organization” and “Command” for the
entry effective 1 Nov 94 to read “Missile” and “F E Warren.”

It is further recommended that his record, with the  corrected  OSB,
be considered for promotion to major by Special Selection Board  for
the CY01A Central Major Selection Board.

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 16 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

By majority vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Groner voted to deny the application.  A  minority
report is attached at Exhibit F.  The following documentary evidence
was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Nov 02.
    Exhibit F.  Minority Report, dated




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-02020


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that
the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY01A Central
Major Selection Board be corrected in the “Assignment History”
section as follows:

      a.  Change the DAFSC effective 1 May 01 to K13S3E.

      b.  Remove the “Q” prefix from the DAFSC effective 14 Jun 96
and change to read 13S3D.

      c.  Change the “Organization” and “Command” for the entry
effective 1 Nov 94 to read “Missile” and “F E Warren.”

      It is further directed that his record, with the corrected
OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special
Selection Board for the CY01A Central Major Selection Board.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                       FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX


          In Executive Session on 16 January 2003,  we  considered  the
applicant’s request for promotion consideration  to  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01A Central Major  Promotion  Selection
Board.  The applicant claims there were errors  in  his  record  as  it
appeared before the promotion board.  A majority of the Board voted  to
grant the applicant relief.  I vote to deny.

          Applicant himself describes the alleged  errors  as  “minor,”
but seeks an SSB anyway because he says the errors gave  the  promotion
board the wrong impression that “I  did  not  care  about  my  records”
although the anticipated consequences of  such  a  belief  are  nowhere
presented in applicant’s petition.

          Applicant states that he took immediate action to correct his
records after a records review in Dec 00, prior to the promotion  board
convening on 18  Jun  01,  but  provides,  primarily,  only  conclusory
statements to support his claim.  The documentation he provides appears
to be dated only weeks before or after 18 Jun  01.   In  addition,  the
statement of support he provides is not from his rating chain,  is  for
the most part  a  verbatim  repetition  of  a  portion  of  applicant’s
petition and, in my view, does not  provide  independent  corroborating
evidence that he attempted to correct his records in a timely manner.

          AFI 36-2501, paragraph 6.3.2.2 specifically states,  “Do  not
have an SSB if, by exercising reasonable diligence, the officer  should
have discovered the error or omission and could have  taken  corrective
action before the originally  scheduled  board  convened.”   I  am  not
persuaded by the  evidence  of  record  that  the  applicant  exercised
reasonable diligence in this case.  I believe that the promotion system
generally makes officers aware of the importance of their records being
correct when they are considered for promotion and,  significantly,  of
their responsibility  to  take  reasonable  measures  to  ensure  their
records’ correctness.  In my view,  fairness  requires  at  least  that
applicants  in  cases  such  as  this  clearly  demonstrate  that  they
exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to correct errors in their
records prior to the convening of a promotion board, before we  provide
the  extraordinary  relief  of  a  second  opportunity  for   promotion
consideration.

          Given applicant’s own characterization of the alleged  errors
as “minor,” and an insufficiency of evidence that he acted sufficiently
assiduously to correct them, I find no evidence of injustice sufficient
to grant the relief requested



                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                             Panel Member