RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03335
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period
1 Sep 98 through 31 Aug 99 be  substituted  with  a  reaccomplished
report that includes a  recommendation  for  Professional  Military
Education (PME).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The omission of a recommendation for PME was  inadvertent  and  was
the result  of  a  hurry  to  complete  the  OPR  and  a  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF).   During  the  time  that  his  OPR  was
prepared, his rater was busy preparing other  OPRs  and  PRFs.   He
sent his rater a draft report that contained a  recommendation  for
the  wrong  level  of  PME,  Senior  Service  School   (SSS)   vice
Intermediate Service School (ISS).   The  incorrect  recommendation
led to his being contacted to ascertain the correct level  of  PME.
It was his understanding after it  was  pointed  out  that  he  was
eligible for ISS not SSS that the correct recommendation  would  be
placed on his OPR.  When he received a copy and the  recommendation
was omitted, he contacted his rater and was  told  that  it  was  a
mistake.  When he discussed this with his rating chain, he was told
that they did not think it would have an impact.  He believes  that
the omission of a recommendation for  PME  adversely  impacted  his
opportunity for selection to attend ISS.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his
ERAB appeal, a letter of support from his rating chain at the time,
a newly accomplished OPR, and copies of  several  of  his  previous
OPRs.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the  grade  of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  is
13 Sep 86.  A resume of the applicant’s last ten OPRs follows:

      Closeout Date                     Overall Rating

        31 Aug 93                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 94                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 95                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 96                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 97                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 98                       Meets Standards
       *31 Aug 99                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 00                       Meets Standards
        31 Aug 01                       Meets Standards
        01 Jul 02                       Meets Standards

*Contested Report

On 26 Jul 02, the applicant  appealed  to  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) to substitute the OPR closing  out  31  Aug  99
with a reaccomplished report.   The  ERAB  denied  the  applicant’s
request on 17 Sep 02.

The applicant was considered but  not  selected  for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel by the  CY01B  (5  Nov  01)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  add  a
PME recommendation to his OPR.  Applicant  has  provided  a  letter
from his additional rater acknowledging that the applicant’s  rater
failure to make a PME recommendation was due to  an  administrative
oversight.  The applicant has not provided supporting documentation
from  the  rater  himself.   Further,  the  additional  rater  only
supports adding the PME recommendation to make him more competitive
to attend PME in-residence.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO addresses the issue of the applicant’s incorrect Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) submitted in a separate application and if it
warrants consideration  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by
special selection board (SSB)  for  the  CY01B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.  They  recommend  that  the  applicant  be
denied promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by SSB.

The incorrect duty title entry on the applicant’s OSB  has  been  a
matter of record for well over eight years.  He has not provided  a
concrete explanation for filing so late to correct this error.  The
error has been corrected in the  military  personnel  data  system.
However, each officer eligible for promotion consideration  by  the
CY01B board received an officer  preselection  brief  (OPB)  90-100
days prior to the board convening in Nov 01.  The OPB contains data
that will  appear  on  the  OSB  at  the  central  board.   Written
instructions attached to the OPB advise the  officer  to  carefully
examine the brief for completeness  and  accuracy.   If  they  find
errors, they  must  take  corrective  action  prior  to  the  board
convening.  The applicant has not demonstrated reasonable diligence
in the maintenance of his records.

Although the duty title was incorrect on the OSB, the correct  duty
title was reflected on the  applicant’s  corresponding  OPR.   They
believe that the board  was  able  to  distinguish  the  difference
between the information reflected on the OSB  and  the  information
reflected on the OPR.

Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection  record  (OSR)
including the promotion recommendation  form,  officer  performance
reports, decorations, etc., assessing whole person factors such  as
job performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of
experience, leadership,  and  academic  and  professional  military
education.  AFPC/DPPPO is not convinced  that  the  incorrect  duty
title  from  eight  years  ago  contributed  to   the   applicant’s
nonselection.

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 6 Dec 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.  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 02-03335
in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha M. Maust, Member
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Dec 02.




                                   EDWARD C. KOENIG, III
                                   Panel Chair