RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00072
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  JOSEPH W. KASTL

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the  Calendar  Year  2002B  Medical  Service
Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB), with  inclusion  of  an  AF
Form 475,  Education/Training  Report,  for  the  period  covering  16
October 1995 through 21 December 1995, an overseas (OS) duty entry for
his assignment to RAF Lakenheath  UK,  and  a  copy  of  his  American
College of Health Executives (ACHE) Fellow Certificate.

2.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for  the  period  26
May 2001 through 25 May 2002, be declared void and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Error #1:  Three highly significant matters, through no fault of  his,
are missing from his file.  Error  #2:   His  “on  top”  report  is  a
clumsily written document  lacking  specific  details  or  the  “push”
required for advancement.  Error #3:  As a  matter  of  integrity,  he
would not countenance phony reporting in response to  an  official  IG
inquiry.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a summary memorandum, with
a copy of his training report mission from the promotion file, a  copy
of  his  Fellowship  in  American  College  of  Healthcare  Executives
Certificate, a copy of e-mails between the applicant and his point  of
contact, a copy of the contested OPR, a copy of his PRF, a copy  of  a
letter from his senior rater, and seven charts summarizing information
in   his   application.    Applicant's   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of captain.  Applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion to the  grade  of  major  by  the  CY02B,  CY03A  and  CY03B
Selection Boards.  The applicant’s OPR profile since 1996, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

              21 Dec 95               Training Report
              14 Aug 96           Meets Standards (MS)
              25 May 97                  MS
              25 May 98                  MS
              25 May 99                  MS
              25 May 00                  MS
              14 Jul 00               Training Report
              25 May 01                  MS
             *25 May 02                  MS
               3 Feb 03                  MS
               8 Sep 03                  MS

*Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states it is noted in AFI  36-2401,  paragraph  A1.5.1,  “A
report is not erroneous or unfair because the  applicant  believes  it
contributed to a nonselection  for  promotion  or  may  impact  future
promotion career opportunities.  A simple willingness by evaluators to
upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing  so.
It must be proven the report is  erroneous  or  unjust  based  on  its
content.”

In reference to the letter of  support  provided  by  the  applicant’s
additional rater at  the  time  the  report  was  written,  they  note
retrospective views of  evaluators  months  or  even  years  after  an
evaluation  does  not  constitute  an  avenue  for  rewriting   and/or
reconsideration of the member’s performance records.

In accordance with DOD Directive 1320.11, paragraph  4.3,  “A  Special
Selection Board  shall  not,  under  Section  628(b)  or  14502(b)  of
reference  (b),  consider  any  officer  who  might,  by   maintaining
reasonably careful records, have discovered and taken steps to correct
that error or omission on which the original board based its  decision
against promotion.”

In summary, DPPPE noted the Air Force views an  evaluation  report  as
most accurate when written and it becomes a matter of  record.   Given
the limited space  to  provide  a  written  assessment  on  evaluation
reports,  evaluators  must  make  a   conscious   decision   on   what
accomplishments/statements to include on the report.  An omission does
not constitute an error.  There are no errors or injustices  cited  in
the OPR.  Once again retrospective views of evaluators months or  even
years after an evaluation do not constitute an  avenue  for  rewriting
and/or  reconsideration   of   the   member’s   performance   records.
Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s  request  to  void
his OPR.

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

AFPC/DPPPO states they do not refute the  applicant’s  assertion  that
the  training  report,  overseas  duty  history   entry,   and   board
certification were not included in his selection record  at  the  time
the original board convened.

DPPPO notes counsel’s statement that  the  promotion  board  may  have
questioned the absence of the 1995 training report from the  selection
record, more specifically, his presuming the board may have  concluded
the  applicant   either   failed   the   mandatory   Health   Services
Administration course or declined to attend.  They believe this  is  a
faulty assertion.  Every officer in the MSC career field  is  required
to attend this course in order to advance  to  a  qualified  level  in
their Air Force  specialty;  for  example,  AFSC  41A1  (entry  level)
progresses to  AFSC  41A3  (qualified  level).   If  the  officer  had
declined training or failed this training, it is  highly  unlikely  he
would have  continued  to  receive  assignments  with  duties  at  the
qualified “3” level from 1997 to his  in-the-promotion  zone  look  in
October 2002 and thereafter.  In addition, when reviewing the training
report, they failed to discover significant distinctions  which  would
set the applicant apart from other school attendees (his peers)  other
than the fact he was designated a group leader, as counsel states, “by
virtue of his seniority.”   They  assumed  the  applicant  was  higher
ranking to the other students and therefore expected to  fulfill  this
responsibility.  In conclusion, they firmly believe  this  report  did
not represent a tiebreaker regarding the applicant’s nonselection  for
promotion.

DPPPO is of the same  opinion  regarding  the  missing  overseas  duty
history.  As  counsel  brings  to  light,  this  assignment  was  well
documented on the  applicant’s  top  two  OPRs  and  on  a  decoration
citation, so  the  experience  was  considered  during  the  promotion
deliberation process.  The question is, as counsel  repeatedly  speaks
to, whether the applicant displayed concern for the  accuracy  of  his
records.  In their deduction of the facts regarding both the  training
report and missing Officer Selection Brief (OSB) entry,  he  did  not.
They find it difficult to rely on the e-mail correspondence that  took
place between the applicant and Captain D--- as  proof  the  applicant
exercised proper care of his records.  Specifically, never  once  does
Captain D--- tell the applicant that his training report was filed  in
his Officer Selection Record (OSR).  In fact, when  reviewing  the  e-
mail, Captain D--- broke down the exact contents of the record.  Based
on this information, the error (missing training report)  was  clearly
discoverable, but the applicant failed to react or provide evidence to
show what he did with this information.   Furthermore,  regarding  the
overseas history entry, Captain D--- was not in a capacity nor was  it
his responsibility to ensure this information  was  reflected  on  the
OSB.  With that,  DPPPO  notes  Captain  D---  specifically  told  the
applicant to verify this data himself.  This  error  was  discoverable
and fixable had the applicant in fact carefully reviewed  the  Officer
Preselection Brief (OPB) and taken the appropriate  corrective  action
as reflected on the OPB instruction handout, which counsel alleges the
applicant did, but provides no support for this claim.

In reference to the omitted ACHE board certification, they  note  that
this information is masked for all MSC officers through the  grade  of
major.  This means the information was intentionally removed from  the
selection record and not present on the brief viewed by the  promotion
board.  All MSC officers compete to major in this manner, so to  allow
the applicant to have this  certificate  included  in  his  OSR  would
create bias in the current promotion process.

They reviewed the comments in the AFPC/DPPPE advisory  concerning  the
applicant’s request to remove  the  contested  OPR  and  have  nothing
further  to  add.   Since  the   advisory   recommends   denial,   SSB
consideration is not warranted.  Therefore, they recommend  denial  of
applicant’s request.  They believe  the  single  training  report  and
overseas duty entry were immaterial and not likely  the  precursor  to
the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.  They trust the results of
the original board were based on a complete review of the  applicant’s
entire record, assessing whole person factors such as job performance,
professional qualities, depth and breadth of  experience,  leadership,
and education.  Furthermore, they uphold DOD policy delivered via  AFI
36-2501, paragraph 6.3.2.2, which states SSBs will not convene  if  by
exercising reasonable diligence, the officer  should  have  discovered
the error or omission and could have taken  corrective  action  before
the originally scheduled board convened; which in  their  opinion,  he
did not.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 May 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On 20 May 2004,
the applicant requested his application be temporarily  withdrawn  (Ex
E).

In a letter dated 26 July 2004, applicant requested his application be
reopened and responded to each contention.  Contention #1:  He did not
exercise due diligence in correcting his record.  He responds in fact,
he took a step beyond a reasonable  review,  asking  his  Field  Grade
Officer representative at AFPC to  examine  his  record  for  anything
missing.  His clear intent was  a  thorough  review.   His  note  from
Captain D--- assured him that his record was complete and that all key
items were present.  It was redundant to  visit  AFPC  in  person  and
verify his record.  He relied on the competence and regularity of  the
system, plus the assurance of his representative.

Contention #2:  It  did  not  matter  that  the  training  report  and
overseas duty history were missing from his promotion file.   He  asks
how one can guess at the inner workings of  a  promotion  board?   His
understanding  is  that  omissions  of  even  minor  matters  can   be
tiebreakers, given the extreme level of competition in his Corps.  The
Chief of the MSC Utilization  Branch,  who  was  also  Captain  D---‘s
supervisor, advised him in nonselect counseling given  on  16  January
2003 that even the slightest omission could be fatal.

Contention #3:   It  was  not  Captain  D---‘s  role  to  assist  with
evaluating the completeness of his record.  He states  it  surely  was
his role as liaison to MSCs in matters of  assignments  and  promotion
records.  Furthermore, in corresponding with him, he took on the  role
of trusted agent to validate the  completeness  and  accuracy  of  his
records.  He responded with a note that indicated everything was OK.

Contention #4:  He was a leader in the training course “by  virtue  of
seniority,” so it was not relevant to leadership.  He states, this  is
the usual way leaders are determined in the training environment.   It
was still highly relevant.  Even though new  to  the  Air  Force,  his
training report  demonstrated  solid  leadership  during  the  10-week
course.

Contention #5:  The letter of support by Col S--- on his behalf  is  a
retrospective review of an evaluator.  He states Col S---‘s letter  is
an attempt to bring justice to his  promotion  proceedings  by  freely
admitting there were errors and  omissions  made  in  the  OPR.   This
letter is a strong statement that his OPR should be voided  and  there
should be a Special Selection Board.

Contention #6:  Subsequent above-the-zone  promotion  boards  did  not
promote him.  He states, this has no relevance.  The key  board,  when
his chance of promotion was at its greatest, was his in-the-zone  2002
board.

Contention #7:  It doesn’t matter that  his  board  certification  was
missing from his promotion file.  He states it is  the  norm  to  have
certification by the lieutenant colonel level, so few captains had  it
in 2002  when  meeting  the  board.   He  exceeded  this  standard  by
attaining  the  level  of   Fellow,   an   achievement   expected   of
CEOs/Commanders.  This achievement earns an M prefix next to the  41A3
AFSC.  The board might have seen the M prefix and then looked for  the
missing board certification in his promotion file.

The advisory opinions have  conceded  that  his  training  report  and
overseas duty history  were  absent.   These  omissions  alone  should
trigger a Special Selection Board.  It is crucial to  understand  that
other outcome-determination matters were missing as  well.   The  only
fair redress is to convene a Special Selection  Board  to  assess  his
entire record.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice with respect to the applicant’s request  for
consideration by a Special Selection Board for promotion to  major  by
the CY02B Medical Service Corps Central Selection Board with inclusion
of his initial  Training  Report  and  a  corrected  OSB  showing  his
overseas assignment to RAF Lakenheath.  The Air  Force  has  indicated
that they cannot refute the applicant’s assertion  that  the  training
report and overseas duty  history  entry  were  not  included  in  his
selection record at the time the original board  convened.   While  it
cannot  be  conclusively  determined  whether  or  not   the   missing
information was the reason for applicant’s nonselection for  promotion
by the Board in question, we do believe that  its  absence  served  to
deprive him of full and fair consideration.  In view of the  foregoing
and in an effort to remove any possibility  of  an  injustice  to  the
applicant, we recommend  that  his  record,  to  include  the  missing
training report and the updated OSB, reflecting his assignment to  RAF
Lakenheath UK for  the  period  21 July  1998  to  29  June  2001,  be
considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special  Selection
Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY02B  Medical  Service  Corps  (MSC)  Central
Selection Board (CSB).

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice with respect  to  the  applicant’s
requests that his American College of Health Executives (ACHE)  Fellow
Certificate be placed in  his  records  and  the  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) rendered for the period 26 May 2001 through 25  May  2002
be declared void and removed from his records.   The  appropriate  Air
Force offices have adequately addressed  the  applicant’s  contentions
and we are in agreement with their comments  and  recommendation.   We
have seen no evidence by the applicant indicating he has been  treated
differently from other similarly situated members with respect to  his
ACHE Fellowship Certificate.  As to his request for removal of his OPR
closing 25 May 2002, we have carefully reviewed the statement  by  the
additional rater of the contested report and do not find its  contents
support a finding the report  is  erroneous  or  unjust.   Rather,  it
appears that this officer’s comments are a well-intentioned after-the-
fact effort to improve the applicant’s promotion opportunities, which,
in our view, is not an adequate basis to remove the  report  from  the
record.  The additional rater does not relate any information that was
unavailable to him at the time he and the  other  evaluators  prepared
the report nor does he  indicate  the  information  contained  in  the
report is in error, merely that the report  could  have  been  written
differently -- stronger.  While  we  appreciate  the  admiration  this
officer may have for the applicant, none of these considerations  are,
in our view, in and by  themselves,  appropriate  bases  to  favorably
consider the applicant’s request that the report be removed  from  his
records.  Accordingly, the above-discussed requests by  the  applicant
are denied.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issues  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected by amending his  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB), prepared for consideration by  the  Calendar  Year  2002B
(CY02B) Major Medical Service Corps Central Selection Board to reflect
his overseas assignment to  RAF  Lakenheath,  UK,  during  the  period
21 July 1998 to 29 June 2001.

His record, including the AF  Form  475,  Education  Training  Report,
rendered for the period 16 October 1995 through 21 December 1995,  and
his corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade  of  major
by a Special Selection Board for the CY02B Medical Service Corps (MSC)
Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 January 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                  Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
              Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Apr 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04 and Withdrawal
                Request dated 20 May 04.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 26 Jul 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair







AFBCMR BC-2004-00072





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected by amending his Officer
Selection Brief (OSB), prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year
2002B (CY02B)Major Medical Service Corps Central Selection Board, to
reflect his overseas assignment to RAF Lakenheath, UK, during the
period 21 July 1998 to 29 June 2001.

      His record, including the AF Form 475, Education Training
Report, rendered for the period 16 October 1995 through 21 December
1995, and his corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade
of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY02B Medical Service
Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB).







                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency