RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00114
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared on him and viewed  by  the
CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection  Board  be  corrected  to
accurately reflect his duty history.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by
special selection  board  (SSB)  for  the  CY04B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OSB prepared for the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel  Central  Selection
Board incorrectly reflected the wrong  organizational  level  on  his
assignment effective 9 Dec 02 and also reflects the  wrong  Duty  Air
Force Specialty Code (DAFSC).  The applicant provides a chronological
sequence of his efforts to correct his records.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 31  May  89.   He  is  presently
serving on active duty in the grade of major.  He was considered  and
not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  the
CY 04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  A resume  of  his
last ten Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) reflects overall  ratings
of “Meets Standards.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO advises that the applicant’s record has been  corrected  in
the Military Personnel Data  System  (MilPDS).   They  defer  to  the
recommendation of AFPC/DPPPO regarding the  applicant’s  request  for
promotion consideration by SSB.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion
consideration by SSB.  Although the applicant’s  OSB  was  incorrect,
his OPRs closing 1 Jun 03 and 1 Jun 04 clearly reflect his  DAFSC  as
“13S4” and organization of assignment as HQ AFSPC/DR.   They  believe
the  board  members  had  knowledge  of  the  applicant’s   increased
responsibility from wing to headquarters level  and  factored  it  in
when rendering their promotion recommendation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant indicates  his
disagreement with AFPC/DPPPO’s assertion that the board was aware  of
his increased responsibility from wing to  headquarters  level.   The
applicant contrasts the purpose and content of the PRF, OPRs and  the
OSB.  He opines that since the promotion board  reviewed  some  3,900
records and were under extreme time  constraints,  it  is  “far  more
reasonable” that they  would  place  more  emphasis  on  the  OSB  to
determine duty progression rather than  cross-check  the  3,900  OSBs
against approximately 156,000 pages of OPRs,  training  reports,  and
medals for accuracy.  He believes it is reasonable that the promotion
board members could have missed the inaccuracies of  his  OSB,  which
misrepresented four and one-half years on  the  job.   The  applicant
further asserts that  the  corrected  OSB  represents  a  significant
improvement to  his  career  history  by  accurately  reflecting  his
increased responsibility at the headquarters level.   He  notes  that
two senior officers that previously served on boards advised him they
placed a “high” degree of reliance on the OSB and PRF.

In further support of his appeal, applicant  attaches  a  copy  of  a
letter sent to him in response to an appeal of his PRF, copies of the
correct and incorrect OSBs, and  a  copy  of  his  “as  met”  Officer
Selection Record.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  We believe that  the  incorrect
duty  title  on  the  applicant’s  OSB  constitutes  harmless  error.
Additionally, although the applicant provided a chronological log  of
his efforts to keep his records accurate, we note that his  contested
OSB is the  same  as  his  Officer  Preselection  Brief  (OPB).   The
applicant states that when he  reviewed  the  OPB,  he  “detected  no
errors.”  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief  sought  in
this application.

4.  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 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-2005-
00114 in Executive Session on 20 April 2005, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 8 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 05, w/atchs.




                                   B.J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair