RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03871
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Officer Selection Brief (OSB)  be  corrected  to  reflect  her
correct assignment history information.

2.  She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel
by  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year   2003A
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The second line in the OSB Assignment History should  read,  Effective
Date:  16 Feb 2001; K12A3C; Duty Title:  Chief, Wing  Plans/Instructor
Navigator;  W/B;  PAF;  Organization:   WING  STAFF  ELMENDORF.    The
justification is a PCA from the 517 AS to the 3 WG  on  16  Feb  2001.
Next, insert a line, Effective Date:  18 Feb 2000; K12A3C; Duty Title:
 Assistant Operations Officer; W/B;  PAF;  Organization:   AIRLIFT  SQ
ELMENDORF.  This was a Duty Title change within the  squadron.   Last,
insert a line, Effective Date:  17 Aug 1999; K12A3C; C-130H Instructor
Navigator; W/B; PAF; AIRLIFT SQ ELMENDORF.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of her OSB, a  copy
of her PRF and a copy of her last four OPRs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selection for promotion to the  grade
of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY03A  Lieutenant  Colonel   Central
Selection Board.

OPR profile since 1991, follows:

       PERIOD ENDING              EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         20 Feb 91      Meets Standards (MS)
         28 Feb 92              MS
         19 Nov 92              MS
         19 Nov 93              MS
         19 Nov 94              MS
         19 Nov 95              MS
         15 Dec 95     Education/Training Report (TR)
         26 Jul 96              MS
         30 Mar 97              MS
         30 Mar 98              MS
         30 Mar 99              MS
         15 Mar 00              MS
         15 Mar 01              MS
         15 Mar 02              MS
         15 Mar 03              MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO reviewed this application and confirmed the  errors  in  the
applicant’s duty  history  on  the  contested  OSB.   DPAO  defers  to
AFPC/DPPPO for SSB consideration.

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

AFPC/DPPPO states that each officer eligible for  a  CSB  receives  an
Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to convening of the board which
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 she finds any errors, she 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 state what action she took,
or provide any documentation to substantiate  that  she  attempted  to
correct these discrepancies prior to convening of the board.

In addition to the OPB the applicant received for the CY03A CSB,  they
point out that she also received OPBs for her CY01B and  CY02B  below-
the-promotion zone  (BPZ)  Lieutenant  Colonel  CSBs.   The  contended
incorrect duty history entries were also reflected on both of the OSBs
for her BPZ considerations as well.  They question why  the  applicant
did not attempt to challenge the contested  errors  on  her  OPBs  and
subsequently on her OSBs for the CY01B and CY02B CSBs.

Lastly, although her CY03A OSB reflected the  incorrect  duty  history
data, her respective Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) contained  the
correct information,  which  the  board  members  saw  and  took  into
consideration in evaluating her record.  As such, the  corrected  duty
history data does not introduce  any  new  information  that  was  not
already considered by the board members.   Therefore,  they  recommend
disapproval of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 30 January 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that she has been the victim of an injustice.  Her contentions  are
noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by  the
appropriate Air Force offices adequately  address  those  allegations.
Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  the  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   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  this  application,  BC-
2003-03871,  in  Executive  Session  on  25  March  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member
                       Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Nov 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 1 Dec 03, w/atch.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jan 04.




                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                             Panel Chair