RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02152
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) that met the Calendar Year (CY) 2000
Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection  Board  (CSB)  be  corrected  to
reflect his duty title as Chief, Standardization/Evaluation  Division,
as a group level position.

He also requests promotion consideration by a Special Selection  Board
(SSB) by the CY00 board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he  discovered  the  error  in  August/September  2000,  he  went
directly to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF)  to  try  to  get  the
error corrected.  He was informed by personnel at  the  MPF  that  the
personnel system was down Air Force wide and it would be down for some
time and there was nothing they or  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Center
(AFPC) could do at that time.  It was suggested he return in  a  month
and hopefully the system would be working.  He agreed to return  in  a
month because he believed in the integrity of the personnel system and
what an Air Force officer was telling him--without getting anything in
writing.  He made  several  visits  to  the  MPF  to  have  the  error
corrected and each time he was told the system was  not  working.   On
his final visit to the MPF, 30 days prior to the board,  he  was  told
the system was still down and  many  duty  titles  were  going  to  be
incorrect for the board.  He was advised by personnel since  his  duty
title on his Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  was  correct,  the
board would have the correct information.

He tried to the best of his ability to get the error corrected.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A, CY01B, CY02B and CY03A  lieutenant
colonel central selection boards.

On 6 October 2003, HQ  AFPC/DPPPOC  requested  the  applicant  provide
additional documentation to include the PRF he received prior  to  the
CY00A CSB.  The applicant provided the PRF.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION
                   4 Dec 96       Meets Standards
                   4 Dec 97       Meets Standards
                   4 Dec 98       Meets Standards
                  14 Mar 00       Meets Standards
                  14 Mar 01       Meets Standards
                  15 Oct 02       AF Form 475
                  14 Mar 02       Meets Standards
                   8 Apr 03       Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAO  states  the  applicant’s  CY00  lieutenant  colonel  CSB
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) contained incorrect  assignment  history
information.  The applicant’s MPF  obtained,  reviewed,  and  verified
supporting documentation and has updated the applicant’s duty history.
 They defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPOO for SSB consideration.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPOO states the applicant contends his OSB did  not  reflect
his 14 January 2000 duty title, showing him in a group level position,
thus causing the board not to see his growth potential and ability for
promotion.  However, in reviewing the applicant’s record,  they  noted
in block 8 of the OPR closing 14 March 2000, which was the top  report
for the CY00A CSB, and  his  PRF,  reflected  his  organizational  and
squadron level position in clear text.  Although  his  top  line  duty
title was missing on his OSB, the board  reviewed  his  OPR  and  PRF,
which showed his career progression from squadron to group level.

The applicant alleges he made several  attempts  to  have  this  error
corrected prior to the board.  However, he did not follow up to ensure
the error was corrected.  Nor, has he provided
documentation to substantiate what  action  he  took  to  correct  his
record.  Also, since the applicant was aware of the error and knew the
information had not been corrected, he could have written a letter  to
the board informing them of his missing duty title.   DPPPOO  verified
that the applicant elected not to exercise that option.

DPPPOO recommends the applicant’s request be time-barred.  However, if
the board considers the appeal  on  merit,  they  then  recommend  the
requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his request
should not be time barred.  The rules cannot be changed in mid-stream.
 Although, the Board  essentially  had  all  the  correct  information
available, they also had information that was incorrect.  He  believes
that in the final rounds, when board members were looking for  reasons
to distinguish between the promote and don’t promote records, they may
have glanced at his duty title  history,  and  thought  he  was  in  a
squadron level position and moved him to the don’t promote  pile.   He
also states it was possible the board noticed the conflict between his
job history and the PRF and used this against him.  When  he  realized
this error would not be corrected prior to the convening of the board,
he asked other O-6s if he should write the board and they advised  him
not to write the board.  He believes he has a valid request for an SSB
and if he meets an SSB, no matter what the outcome, justice would have
been served (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 an  error  or  injustice.   Although  the  2000  duty
history entry was inaccurate on the applicant’s OSB at the time he was
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  in  2000,
we do not believe this fact,  in  and  by  itself,  is  sufficient  to
warrant approval of the  requested  relief.   The  available  evidence
indicates the  position  he  held  was  accurately  reflected  on  his
performance report  closing  14 March  2000.   He  apparently  changed
positions   on    14    June    2000    and    became    the    Chief,
Standardization/Evaluation Division, as reflected on his PRF  for  the
CY00A lieutenant colonel board.  These documents were available to the
selection board in  question  and  therefore,  we  must  conclude  the
selection board did have access to the  cited  information.   Although
the applicant asserts he made several attempts to get his  duty  title
corrected, he presents insufficient evidence of due diligence  on  his
part to correct his record.  Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  on  which  to
favorably consider 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  BC-2003-
02152 in Executive Session on 10 February 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
                       Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Officer Selection Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 12 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Jan 04.




                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair