RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00680
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special
Selection Boards (SSBs) for the Calendar Years 1998B, 1999A and  2000A
Central Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records were inaccurate when they were considered by the CY99A and
CY00A boards for the following reasons.

      1.  Lack of Flight Commander duty  title  on  Officer  Selection
Briefs (OSBs) prepared for consideration by the three selection boards
in question.

       2.  A  short,  premature  nine-month  OPR   was   unnecessarily
generated for the CY99A board.

      3.  For unknown reasons, the same top OPR  that  met  the  CY99A
board was also the top report on file at the CY00A board.  In  effect,
there was no fresh OPR on top to meet the CY00A board.  This seemingly
violates the instructions from AFPC to MPFs.  The  premature  OPR  for
the CY99A board further contributed to negligence/oversight going into
the CY00A board.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  a  Timeline  of  Relevant
Information, three OSBs, a Memo for AFBCMR, three OPRs,  Memo  to  MPF
for 24 January 2000 Board, two TDY orders,  179-day  Section  of  USAF
waiver (10-day tour extension), promotion  statistics,  a  copy  of  a
letter to the squadron commander, a copy of a  letter  to  the  flight
commander, a copy of an e-mail exchange, a copy of  a  letter  to  the
former flight commander, a copy of Potential Joint Force Raters, and a
copy of a letter to the  CY99A  Promotion  Board  for  potential  SSB.
Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
captain, having assumed that grade, effective and with a date of  rank
of 6 March  1991.   The  applicant’s  total  active  federal  military
service date is 20 November 1986 and his  total  federal  commissioned
service date  is  6  March  1987.   He  has  an  established  date  of
separation of 31 March 2007.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of major by the CY98B, CY99A, CY00A, CY00B, CY01A,  CY02A,  and  CY02B
Central  Major  Selection  Boards.   Applicant’s  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs) from 1995 through 2002 reflect meets standards  on  all
performance factors.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPBR3  reviewed  that  portion  of   the   applicant’s   request
pertaining to the OPR closing 8 December 1998 and indicated the report
was not accomplished prematurely.  For every officer promotion  board,
a directed by HAF (DBH) date is  established  by  Officer  Promotions.
For the CY00A, that date was 8 December 1998.  This means  that  every
officer in the Air Force meeting the board Above the Zone who did  not
have a new report in their promotion folder was  directed  to  have  a
report closing out on 8 December 1998 as long as they had at least  60
days of supervision on that  date.   DPPBR3  indicated  that  the  OPR
closing 8 December 1998 appears to be in  compliance  with  Air  Force
requirements.

DPPBR3 noted that according to the OPR closing 20 March 2000, only 120
days of supervision had been acquired since 9 December 1998.  Since 60
days of supervision must be obtained to close out a  DBH  report,  the
DBH cutoff date for a board convening on 24 January  2000  would  have
been 24 October 2000.  The applicant would  not have had the  required
supervision until 20 January 2000, far  too  late  to  close  out  the
report.  In such cases, the DBH report would be waived and  the  board
members would view the most recent report  as  the  top  report  in  a
member’s record.  Once again, it appears to DPPBR3  that  this  report
appears to have met all Air  Force  requirements  and  does  not  look
unusual or out of the ordinary.

The AFPC/DPPBR3 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that the applicant’s 15 June 1993 duty  title  entry
was updated in the Military Personnel Data System  (MilPDS)  in  March
2000, after he submitted a DD Form 149, Application for Correction  of
Military  Record,  to  correct  this  error.   However,  each  officer
eligible for promotion consideration by  the  CY99A,  CY00A,  and  the
CY00B boards received an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) 90-100  days
prior to convening of the boards.  The OPB the officer receives before
the board contains the same 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
the officer to  carefully  examine  the  brief  for  completeness  and
accuracy.  If he finds any errors,  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.”   The  applicant  did  not
take any corrective action until after the  CY00A  board  convened  in
January 2000.  Since he did not exercise due diligence to  ensure  his
record was correct prior to each of the boards, they  do  not  believe
SSB is warranted.  Furthermore, written instructions attached  to  the
OPB  explained  the  opportunity  of  communicating  with  the   board
president by writing a letter to the board  as  well.   The  applicant
could have used this means  to  inform  the  board  president  of  the
correct duty history.  They verified that he elected not  to  exercise
this entitlement.

Additionally, although the 15 June 1993 duty title data was  incorrect
on  the  OSBs,  it  was  correctly  reflected   on   the   applicant’s
corresponding OPRs.  As such, they  believe  the  board  was  able  to
distinguish the difference between the information on  the  OSBs,  and
the information reflected on the OPRs.

While it may be argued that the incorrect duty title from 1993  was  a
factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there  is  no  clear  evidence
that this data negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central
boards evaluate the entire officer selection  record  assessing  whole
person factors such as job performance, professional qualities,  depth
and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic  and  professional
military education.  They are not convinced the  administrative  error
in  the  duty  title  contributed   to   the   applicant’s   promotion
nonselection.   Therefore,  they  recommend  denial   of   applicant’s
request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  states  that  he
believes some major points have been overlooked in DPPPO’s statements.
 He disagrees with  their  comments  and  recommendation  for  several
reasons.

In summary, in light of the advisory opinions  and  his  ongoing  case
package that he previously submitted, DPPPO’s recommendation should be
discounted and he should be promoted on  a  supplemental  board.   The
duty title of flight commander is critical for the  promotion  to  the
rank of major.  He made numerous attempts to gather a  fresh  OPR  for
the January 2000 board.  He asks, should he be penalized  because  his
squadron leadership shuffled him  from  rater  to  rater  without  the
foresight to see the negative impact  on  promotion  in  his  absence?
Isn’t it also a double standard that HAF can waiver  OPR  rules  on  a
whim, yet won’t waiver the ones that would  most  help  the  promotion
candidate?

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached 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 has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant contends  that  he
should receive SSB considerations for promotion by  the  CY98B,  CY99A
and CY00A central major selection boards because his OSBs did not show
he was assigned to duties as a  flight  commander  effective  15  June
1993, the top report at the CY99A board covered a period of  128  days
of supervision, and this same report was the top report on file at the
CY00A board.  We have noted the assessment by the Air Force office  of
primary  responsibility  concerning  these  issues.   Based  on  their
comments, it appears that, with the exception of the missing entry  on
his OSBs, the applicant’s selection record was properly constituted in
accordance with the pertinent  Air  Force  instructions  when  he  was
considered by the  selection  boards  in  question.   Other  than  his
assertions,  the  applicant  has  provided  no  documentary   evidence
indicating the contrary.  As to the missing duty performance entry, we
note that the cited duty title was reflected on his performance report
closing 2 March 1994.  Therefore, that information  was  available  to
the  selection  board  members  when   they   reviewed   his   record.
Accordingly, in view of the above,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
applicant’s records were so inaccurate or  misleading  that  the  duly
constituted selection boards were unable to make reasonable  decisions
concerning his promotability in comparison with his peers.  In view of
the above, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Therefore, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 31 July 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPBR3, dated 22 Apr 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Apr 03.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 27 May 03,
                 w/atchs.




                                  BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                  Acting Panel Chair