RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03712

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be provided a second  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  a  corrected
record that should have met  the  Calendar  Year  2000A  (CY00A)  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He met the 6 May 2002 SSB with discrepancies in his record that should  have
been corrected prior to the board; however, he was not given an  opportunity
to review his record prior to the promotion board.

The applicant states that on 7 March 2002, he was notified that  the  AFBCMR
directed an SSB for his corrected Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for
the CY00A Lt Col Board.  He requested a copy of his record prior to the  SSB
and received it on 6 May 2002,  the  first  day  the  board  convened.   His
corrected  record  contained  an  additional  performance  report  that  was
rendered after the original promotion board and  should  have  been  removed
from his promotion package.

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 major.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by the CY00A and CY01A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

On 20 February 2002, the AFBCMR favorably considered his  request  that  the
PRF prepared for the CY00A Lt Col Board be replaced with  a  substitute  PRF
and he be provided SSB consideration.

He was notified of the AFBCMR’s decision on 4 March 2002.

In a letter to the applicant’s Military Personnel  Flight  (MPF),  dated  26
March 2002, AFPC/DPPPOC advised that the applicant was scheduled to meet  an
SSB on 6 May 2002 and that he should be immediately notified.

In an Email, dated 28 March 2002, the applicant’s  MPF  notified  AFPC  that
the applicant had been notified of the SSB.

In a letter to AFPC/DPPBR, dated 25 April 2002, he  indicated  that  he  was
meeting an SSB on 6 May 2002, and requested  a  copy  of  his  record  which
would meet the board.

In an unsigned 29 April 2002 letter  from  AFPC/DPPBR1,  the  applicant  was
advised that a copy of his OSR, as of the date of the letter, was  attached,
that they may have included a copy of his OSB used  in  his  last  promotion
board, that an updated brief would be placed in his records about two  weeks
prior to the convening of a selection board, and that his MPF would  provide
him with a pre-selection brief.

On 6 May 2002, he was considered and  not  selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB for the CY00A Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied and states,  in  part,  that
the applicant’s records were correct when he was considered  by  the  6  May
2002 SSB.  They reviewed his Officer Selection Record (OSR) as  it  met  the
SSB and did not find the Officer Performance Report, closing 2  March  2001,
the applicant alleges was in his record.  In  addition,  the  corrected  PRF
was considered by the SSB.  It appears that  he  inadvertently  requested  a
copy of his OSR from  the  Officer  Records  Office,  rather  than  the  SSB
Section.   As  such,  he  received  fair  consideration  to  the  grade   of
lieutenant colonel and was not selected for promotion.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that AFPC failed to notify him that he was  meeting  an
SSB and that his records had been corrected as directed by the  AFBCMR.   He
spoke with AFPC officer promotion  personnel  directly  on  at  least  seven
occasions (including the SSB section) and  specifically  mentioned  that  he
was meeting an SSB and was requesting a copy of his records.  He  was  never
directed to any other agency or division despite  his  inquiries.   When  he
called officer promotions on 25 April 2002, they  told  him  that  they  had
just received notification that he was meeting the 6 May 2002 SSB.  On  that
date, he requested a copy of his records and once again specifically  stated
in that request that he was meeting an SSB.   Not  only  did  AFPC  fail  to
notify him that he was meeting an  SSB,  they  also  failed  to  direct  his
records request to the appropriate office even after his repeated  inquiries
weeks before the board met.

While AFPC implies that he received a copy of his most current  OSR  instead
of a properly aged record that they allege met the SSB, this  is  incorrect.
According to  AFI  36-2406,  PRFs  are  removed  from  an  officer’s  record
immediately after a promotion board.  Prior to a promotion board, a copy  of
his OSR would have only contained his most current OPRs, but  no  PRF.   The
copy of the records he received from AFPC contained his most corrected  PRF;
therefore, it was clearly not a copy of his OSR but an attempt  to  age  his
record for the upcoming SSB.  In addition, the  record  contained  an  extra
OPR, a material error that should be corrected.

Additional evidence suggests that his record was not  properly  aged  before
it met the SSB.  After the board results were released, he requested a  copy
of his record as it met the SSB.  AFPC provided him with an  incorrect  copy
of his record that included the OPRs closing 2 March 2001 and 2 March  2002.
 These OPRs should not have been in his record.  In addition, AFPC  did  not
address their failure to provide him an  Officer  Preselection  Brief  (OPB)
prior to the SSB.  AFPC mandates that  ratees  have  the  responsibility  to
ensure their records are accurate and he has attempted to comply  with  this
mandate; however, AFPC has not fulfilled its responsibilities prior  to  the
SSB directed by the AFBCMR.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that  he  was
denied fair and equitable promotion consideration by the  6  May  2002  SSB.
The applicant contends that when he  met  the  SSB  his  record  erroneously
contained an additional OPR; however,  the  appropriate  office  of  primary
responsibility reviewed his Officer Selection Record (OSR)  as  it  met  the
SSB and determined that his OSR did not contain the contested OPR  and  that
his records were correct when considered by the SSB.  After  careful  review
of the evidence provided in support of his  appeal,  we  are  not  persuaded
that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to refute  the  findings
of the OPR.  The applicant also contends that he was  not  notified  of  his
pending SSB consideration; however, an Email, dated 28 March 2002, from  his
MPF to AFPC indicates that he was notified of  the  SSB.   In  view  of  the
above, and since the corrected PRF was considered by  the  SSB,  we  believe
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either
an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no  basis  to  recommend  granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  BC-2002-03712
in Executive Session on 24 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 Jan 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Feb 03, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair