RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00171
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Line  and  Health  Professions  Lieutenant
Colonel Position  Vacancy  Selection  Board,  with  inclusion  of  his
Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  22  May  88
through 21 May 90.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR were missing from his  records  when  he  was  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Lieutenant Colonel
Position Vacancy Board that was held in Jun 02.  A careful  review  of
his officer preselection brief (OPB) prior to the board did not reveal
the error.  The error presented as a minimum an incomplete history  of
his military performance  as  an  officer  and  reflected  a  lack  of
attention to detail in ensuring that a complete package was  presented
to the board.  The missing report could have raised questions  in  the
board members' mind about his  performance  during  those  two  years,
effectively lowering his overall rating.  A position vacancy selection
is highly competitive; therefore, an error  of  this  magnitude  could
have had adverse implications in the selection process of the board.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air  Force  Reserve  in
the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade on  8  Aug  98.
He has been  credited  with  27  years,  8  months,  and  17  days  of
satisfactory federal service for retirement.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1988 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      21 May 88  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  *   821 May 90 Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 92  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 93  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 94  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 95  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 96  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 97  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 98  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 99  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 00  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
  #  21 May 01   Meets Standards (NON-EAD)
      21 May 02  Meets Standards (NON-EAD)

* Contested Report.

# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by  the  FY03  Line  and
Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommended denial indicating that  an  OPB  can  in  no  way
provide information concerning OPRs.  While each officer is provided a
copy of the OPB, they are strongly encouraged to review  the  contents
of their selection folder for just such omissions.  If  the  applicant
had reviewed his selection record within the last 12 years,  he  would
have immediately noticed the omission and resolved the  problem  prior
to this current selection board.

ARPC/DPB noted that the  OPR  in  question  was  completed  while  the
applicant was a first  lieutenant.   Since  1990,  the  applicant  has
successfully been promoted to the grade of captain (where the  missing
OPR would have been the second OPR from the top)  and  to  major  (the
missing OPR would have been the seventh from the top).

As the applicant  has  already  successfully  competed  for  promotion
twice, ARPC/DPB does not believe that the absence of this one document
was a strong factor.  According to ARPC/DPB, selection boards must use
the “whole person” concept to arrive at a decision  for  promotability
of any officer.  OPRs are  just  one  part  of  the  equation.   Other
factors include participation, awards and  decorations,  academic  and
professional military education, and the actual report of how well the
officer accomplished their assigned tasks.

In ARPC/DPB's view, with due diligence and attention  to  his  record,
the applicant could have discovered  the  error  within  the  past  12
years.  As he has already been promoted twice without  this  piece  of
information, there must have been other areas in  the  “whole  person”
concept that impacted the decision of the selection board members.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that he accepts  full  credit
for not checking his selection folder  prior  to  the  board.   Having
twice been selected for promotion, he had an obvious false  impression
that his selection folder was in proper order.  However, in hindsight,
his reliance on the system was not a wise choice in  this  case.   His
promotions  to  the  grades  of  captain  and  major  were   mandatory
promotions, while his consideration for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel was a position vacancy  promotion.   Promotions  at
this level and in a position vacancy status are much more  competitive
than at the two  previous  ranks.   Because  of  the  missing  OPR,  a
complete  record  representing  his  total  performance  history   and
potential was not presented.  Just as a promotion should be  based  on
the whole person concept, it  should  also  be  based  on  a  complete
record.

Applicant's complete response 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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  We note  that  the  applicant’s  OPR
closing 21 May 90 has been a matter  of  record  for  over  12  years.
Furthermore, no evidence has been presented which  has  shown  to  our
satisfaction that the applicant exercised due diligence to ensure  the
accuracy of his record.  In view of the foregoing, and in the  absence
of  sufficient  evidence  to  the  contrary,   we   agree   with   the
recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00171 in Executive Session on 30 Apr 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 3 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 Mar 03.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair