RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00714
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
            COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 SEP 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  given  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  by  the
Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB),
with a corrected Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)  and  the  Meritorious
Service Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC) citation included in his
Officer Selection Record (OSR).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.    The Air Force failed to  correct  his  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) after proper notification of the  errors,  which  prevented  his
fair consideration by the CY02B Colonel CSB.

2.    His Meritorious Service Medal 2OLC citation was missing from his
OSR, which prevented him from  receiving  fair  consideration  by  the
CY02B Colonel CSB.

In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submitted  a  personal
statement, a copy of an email,  Corrections  to  Officer  Preselection
Brief Memorandum, a College Transcript from Widener  University,  copy
of his OSB for the CY02B Colonel CSB,  Board  Discrepancy  Report  for
Board Memorandum, MSM 2OLC citation, and Special Order GD-061.

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 lieutenant colonel.

He was nonselected for promotion by the CY02B, CY03B, CY04A and  CY05A
Colonel CSBs.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states the  written  instructions
attached  to  the  OPB  and  given  to  the  officer  before  the  CSB
specifically states that the academic education area “holds  your  two
highest  degrees  and  reflects  the  ‘year’  for  the  most  recently
completed academic degree only.   In the  applicant’s  case,  his  OSB
reflects that he completed his most recent academic  degree  in  1995.
As such, the Academic Education block did not contain an error.

In regards to the incorrect data in the Assignment  History  block  on
his OSB, the applicant provided a copy of a letter he submitted to his
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) requesting  corrections  on  his  OPB.
However, he does not provide any supporting documentation showing that
he followed up to ensure the data was corrected on his  OSB  prior  to
convening of the board.  In addition the applicant  also  received  an
OPB for his below-the-promotion zone CY01A Colonel CSB that  contained
the same alleged incorrect duty title entries.   DPPPO  questions  why
the applicant did not attempt to challenge the contested  errors  back
when he received his  CY01A  OPB.     Also,  although  his  CY02B  OSB
reflected the incorrect duty  history  data,  his  respective  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) contained the  correct  information,  which
the board member saw and took into  consideration  in  evaluating  his
record.  As such, the corrected duty history data does  not  introduce
any new information that was  not  already  considered  by  the  board
members.

To ensure the contents of the OSR are accurate,  the  applicant  would
have had to request a copy of his OSR from  AFPC  and  gone  over  the
contents of his record.  If he had done so, he would have noticed  the
missing citation and taken corrective action at that  time.   He  does
not provide any documentation to support  his  attempt  to  check  his
record at HQ AFPC.  It is the officer’s responsibility to  ensure  the
accuracy of his record at AFPC prior to the board convening date,  not
after he has been nonselected for promotion.
Although the citation was not on  file  in  his  OSR  when  the  board
convened, the board members knew of its existence as evidenced by  the
entry on his OSB and the board discrepancy report filed  in  his  OSR.
Therefore, they were knowledgeable the decoration was awarded  to  the
applicant and factored it into the promotion selection process.   More
importantly, many of the achievements noted in the MSM  2OLC  citation
were also mentioned in the corresponding performance  reports.   DPPPO
is not convinced the  absence  of  the  citation  contributed  to  the
applicant’s nonselection for promotion.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

To the best of his recollection he contacted his unit personnel office
to ensure receipt of his letter and  was  assured  appropriate  action
would be taken.  He believes he  used  reasonable  diligence  when  he
reviewed  his  records,  identified  the  errors  and   notified   the
appropriate office.  The Air Force  had  a  duty  to  present  to  the
promotion board an accurate record.  Air Force officers  are  entitled
by law and regulation to have an accurate record reviewed by promotion
boards.  AFPC admits that there were two major errors  in  his  record
when the original board reviewed his record.  He  believes  he  should
not be denied a fair opportunity for review because the errors created
by AFPC presented an inconvenience and more work for themselves.   Air
Force Instruction 36-2803, 2.2.2 provides that  award  recommendations
should be restricted to “recognizing meritorious service…that  clearly
place individuals above his or her peers.”

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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  the  Air  Force  failed  to
correct his OSB after proper  notification  of  the  errors,  and  the
citation for the MSM 2/OLC was missing from his OSR,  which  prevented
his record from being fairly considered by the promotion  board.   The
Air Force has  indicated  that  the  board  members  had  before  them
information, which correctly  showed  he  completed  his  most  recent
academic degree in 1995.  Therefore, the board members were  aware  of
his academic achievements and the academic  education  block  did  not
contain an error.  Also, although the OSR did not contain the citation
for the MSM  2/OLC,  the  OSB  accurately  reflected  the  applicant’s
decorations  and  the  MSM  2/OLC  was  factored  into  the  promotion
selection process.  The Board notes that Central Boards  evaluate  the
entire officer record and it  is  highly  unlikely  that  the  missing
citation for the MSM 2/OLC was the sole  cause  of  his  nonselection.
Furthermore, it is the officer’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy
of his record at AFPC prior to the board convening date.   We  believe
the applicant could have been more diligent  to  ensure  these  errors
were corrected prior to the board convening.  Therefore, we agree with
the opinions and recommendation of the Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the  applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, we find no basis upon which to recommend  favorable  action
on 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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
00714 in Executive Session on 27 June 2006, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

            Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 May 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 May 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jun 06.







                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair