RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03068
            INDEX CODE: 131.01, 135.02
      XXXXXXX, JR.     COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Apr 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR)  for  the  period  21 Oct  03
through 20 Oct 04 be declared void and removed from his records.

2.  His selection record, corrected to reflect a year of  satisfactory
federal service for the Retirement/Retention (R/R) year closing 13 Jul
04, meet a Special Review Board (SRB) for the Fiscal Year 2006  (FY06)
Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The R/R point issue was corrected but not in time  for  his  selection
record to be reinstated for consideration by the FY06 LTC PV board.

The applicant provides supporting statements with regard to  his  ERAB
appeal to remove the 20 Oct 04 OPR.   His  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the HQ ARPC/DPB  advisory
(Exhibit B) and official documents provided by the applicant (Exhibits
A and D).

The ARPC Memo (ARPCM) 05-02, dated 21 Jan 05, announcing the convening
of the FY06 LTC PV  board  was  released  to  all  military  personnel
flights (MPFs) in the Air Force.  The ARPCM provided a checklist to be
completed prior to submitting AF Form 709,  PRF,  for  PV  nomination.
The ARPCM 05-02 indicated that nominated officers should be instructed
to  obtain  their  Officer  Preselection  Briefs  (OPBs)  from   their
servicing MPF and review them to ensure their  records  were  accurate
before they met the board.

The applicant’s nomination package for the FY06 LTC PV Selection Board
was received by HQ ARPC  on  29 Apr  05.   Review  of  the  nomination
package determined the applicant did not meet one of the criteria  for
PV consideration, i.e., having at least 50 credit points for a year of
satisfactory federal service during  the  last  full  R/R  year.   The
applicant’s R/R year is 14 Jul-13 Jul, and his  last  full  R/R  year,
closing out 13 Jul 04, reflected 48,  rather  than  the  required  50,
credit points.

Based on Emails provided  by  the  applicant  (Exhibit  D),  he  began
working on correcting his duty history  in  Apr  05.   On  26 Apr  05,
pursuant to the applicant’s inquiry, HQ AFMC/CR confirmed that his R/R
year was 14 Jul-13 Jul and he needed a total of 50 points for a “good”
year for retirement.

On 6 May 05, the applicant’s unit was notified that his last full  R/R
year did not reflect a year of satisfactory federal service.  The unit
contacted the applicant to verify the points and the applicant  agreed
that the points did not reflect a satisfactory year.  According to  HQ
ARPC/DPB, neither the unit nor the applicant indicated that additional
points had been earned but not accounted for.  The nomination  package
was returned to the applicant’s unit on 12 May 05.

On  24 May  05,  HQ  ARPC/DPBR1  forwarded  the  applicant   a   Board
Discrepancy Report for the FY06 LTC PV board regarding a  missing  OPR
closing on 20 Oct 02.  The applicant responded on 26 May  05  and  the
OPR was received by HQ ARPC/DPBR1 that day.

The applicant was notified on 10 Jun 05 that  his  record  was  pulled
from consideration by  the  FY06  LTC  PV  board,  which  subsequently
convened on 13 Jun 05.  The applicant’s point summary was  updated  on
16 Aug 05, two months and three days after the  FY06  selection  board
convened.

On 3 Oct 05, the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB  to  remove
the 20 Oct 04 OPR, contending, in part, that it contained false and/or
inaccurate information and did not match his official title.   In  his
ERAB package, the applicant included his proposed comments for the OPR
in question, none of which was used by the rating chain.  Further, the
duty title, job description, mission description  and  impact  on  the
applicant’s draft OPR were  different  than  those  reflected  in  the
finalized  contested  report.  After   inadvertently   returning   the
application without action, the ERAB considered and denied the  appeal
on 8 Mar 06.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied, asserting  a  review
of the ARPCM 05-02 checklist by the applicant’s unit in Jan  05  would
have  provided  ample  opportunity  to  correct   any   point   credit
discrepancy.   Additionally,  the  applicant   was   responsible   for
reviewing his OPB and reporting any errors found.  Had he or his  unit
indicated the points would be updated prior to the  board’s  convening
date, his package would have been forwarded for  board  consideration.
The applicant states he  provided  a  letter  from  his  senior  rater
supporting his request for  SRB  consideration;  however,  the  senior
rater’s  letter  only  supports  the  applicant’s  ERAB  appeal.   The
applicant’s  package  does  not  include  documentation  attesting  to
actions taken to rectify the points issue prior to the board convening
date.  Effort on his and his unit’s part  should  have  been  expended
before-the-fact, to ensure he was eligible for PV nomination.  At  the
time the board  convened,  the  applicant  was  not  eligible  for  PV
consideration.  If the AFBCMR should find in favor of the  applicant’s
request, HQ ARPC/DPB suggests the OPR issue be  resolved  also  as  it
will directly affect the selection record that will be reviewed by the
SRB.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates he does not recall getting a notification of a
“bad year” for his 13 Jul 04 R/R year indicating  he  was  two  points
short of the required 50 points.  He was not concerned for that reason
and because he was positive he had exceeded his point obligation.   He
does recall being contacted by his unit executive officer (EO) but not
the date; however, he told the EO the information was incorrect and he
would get it corrected.  He describes his efforts to correct  his  R/R
record.  An additional problem was that he was switching units  during
this same period and he suspects the AF Reserve coordinators for  each
unit did not exchange all the information concerning his  record.   He
was also told his record was scheduled to meet the FY06 board  and  he
did not take further action on correcting his R/R points, assuming the
correction had been done.  Although responsibility ultimately lies  on
the member to ensure his/her records are accurate,  the  member  often
relies on others to assist in the process, which  is  especially  true
for Reservists who are not at their unit on a daily basis.

In response to inquiries from the AFBCMR Staff, the applicant provided
additional comments, documents, and Emails.  He indicates that,  while
he did not keep a detailed history of his  efforts,  he  was  actively
engaged in early 2005 to correct  his  records  before  the  selection
board convened.

Complete copies of applicant’s responses,  with  attachments,  are  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice to  warrant  granting  the  relief
sought.  With regard to the 13 Jul 04 R/R year, the  applicant’s  last
inactive duty training points apparently had  not  been  updated  and,
although he did have 50 points for  a  satisfactorily  R/R  year,  his
records  erroneously  reflected  only  48.   The   point   total   was
administratively corrected but  not  in  time  for  the  FY06  LTC  PV
selection board.  We are  persuaded  he  made  sufficient  efforts  to
correct the point discrepancy, as well as  the  reasonable  assumption
that he remained eligible for consideration since, as late  as  24 May
05,  he  received  a  Board  Discrepancy  Report  from  HQ  ARPC/DPBR1
regarding a missing OPR.  As for the contested 20 Oct 04 OPR, we noted
the significant differences between the applicant’s draft  performance
report and the final version.   This,  together  with  the  supporting
statements from the supervisor during the rating period and the senior
rater/rater of the 29 Jul 05 OPR, persuades  us  that  the  20 Oct  04
report is at least questionable.  To  offset  any  possibility  of  an
injustice, we conclude the contested OPR should be declared void.   We
therefore recommend the applicant be afforded  SRB  consideration  for
the FY06 LTC PV board with the 13 Jul 04 R/R year  as  a  satisfactory
year and the 20 Oct 04 OPR removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that  the  Field  Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form  707A,  rendered  for  the  period
21 October 2003 through 20 October 2004, be declared void and  removed
from his records, and his records, reflecting the Retirement/Retention
year ending 13 July 2004 as a satisfactory year of Federal Service, be
considered for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a
Special Review Board (SRB), and his records be evaluated in comparison
with the records of officers who were and were  not  selected  by  the
Fiscal Year 2006 Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Selection  Board,
and if recommended for promotion by the SRB, the Air Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records be advised of  that  recommendation  at
the earliest practicable date so that all  necessary  and  appropriate
actions may be completed.

If he is not recommended for promotion  by  the  SRB,  the  office  of
primary responsibility will advise him of the  recommendation  of  the
SRB.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 April 2006 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-03068 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 1 Feb 06.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Mar 06, w/atchs,
                       and Email, dated 22 Mar 06, w/atchs.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2005-03068




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the
Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the
period 21 October 2003 through 20 October 2004, be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records, and his records,
reflecting the Retirement/Retention year ending 13 July 2004 as a
satisfactory year of Federal Service, be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Review Board (SRB), and
his records be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers
who were and were not selected by the Fiscal Year 2006 Lieutenant
Colonel Position Vacancy Selection Board, and if recommended for
promotion by the SRB, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records be advised of that recommendation at the earliest practicable
date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.

      If he is not recommended for promotion by the SRB, the office of
primary responsibility will advise him of the recommendation of the
SRB.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency