RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00594

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 AUG 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 assignment 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 current duty title history is both incomplete and inaccurate. The
applicant  provides  a  corrected  chronological   listing   of   his
assignment history.

In support of his application, applicant submits  a  personal  letter
and a letter of support from UTASC/CC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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 CY02B, CY03A  and  CY04B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
Selection Boards.  A resume  of  his  last  six  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs) in the grade of  major  reflects  overall  ratings  of
“Meets Standards.”

AFPC/DPPPO has contacted the applicant’s military personnel flight to
administratively  correct  his  records  in  the  military  personnel
system.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO advises the  applicant’s  record  should  be  corrected  to
reflect the proper dates and duty titles in his official  record  and
defers to HQ AFPC/DPPPO for SSB.

AFPC/DPAO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion
consideration by SSB with a corrected  OSB.  AFI  36-2501,  paragraph
6.3.2.2. states “Do not have an  SSB  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.” The applicant alleges that he ensured  his
latest OPR had been processed and was in  the  system  prior  to  the
board. However, he did not provide any documentation supporting  what
he did prior to the  board  to  ensure  his  assignment  history  was
accurate on his OSB. In fact, he acknowledges in his application that
it was several weeks prior to the board when he noticed the incorrect
dates and omissions.

Additionally, while researching the applicant’s case, they found that
the OSBs for his two previous  boards  contained  many  of  the  same
alleged errors--the assignment history on  his  P0503A  OSB  actually
mirrors his P0504B OSB. There is no evidence to support the applicant
exercised due diligence in viewing the accuracy of these OSBs or  his
P0504B OSB. Furthermore, they found the  three  missing  duty  titles
were reflected on the OPRs that closed out on 18 July 2000, 13 August
2002, and 8 April 2004. Since the addition of the duty title  entries
effective 19 July 1999,       3 December 2001, and 14 July 2003,  and
the changed duty title effective date, from 2 September  1999  to  19
July 2000 would not  introduce  any  new  information  that  was  not
already considered by the board members at the original  board,  they
recommend denial for SSB consideration.

The applicant  believes  the  errors  on  his  P0504B  OSB  may  have
negatively impacted his promotion results since he  was  passed  over
with a DP recommendation on his PRF. However, a DP recommendation  is
not a guarantee for promotion. For the P00504B board, 948 of 955  in-
the-promotion-zone (IPZ)/above-the-promotion zone (APZ) Line  of  the
Air Force officers with DPs were selected for a 99.27%  select  rate.
Specifically, of the seven DPs not selected, five were  IPZ  and  two
were APZ. The board results are based on a  complete  review  of  the
applicant’s entire selection record, assessing whole  person  factors
such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of
experience, leadership, and education. And, although the  member  was
qualified for promotion, he was  not  the  best  qualified  of  other
officers  in  the  judgment  of  a  selection   board   vested   with
discretionary authority to make such selections.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant
on 29 April 2005, for review and comment 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.   Applicant  contends  that  his
records were not fairly assessed because his Officer Selection  Brief
(OSB) incorrectly reflected his assignment history.   The  Air  Force
has indicated that the board  members  had  before  them  information
which showed his correct history assignment; therefore, the board was
aware of his assignment history.  Central boards evaluate the  entire
officer  record  and  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  the   incorrect
assignment level on the  OSB  was  the  cause  of  his  nonselection.
Furthermore, the majority of the Board believes the  applicant  could
have been more diligent to discover the  error  and  take  action  to
correct the  OSB  prior  to  the  board  convening.   Therefore,  the
majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendations  of
the Air Force offices of  primary  responsibility  and  adopts  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, the majority of
the Board finds no basis upon which to recommend favorable action  on
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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

____________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00594 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                 Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial  of  the  applicant's
request. Mr Peterson voted to grant; but does not wishes to  submit  a
minority report. The following documentary evidence was considered:


    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, 9 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, undated.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 05.




                                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                             Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                       FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency