RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2006-01041
                                       INDEX CODE:  100.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 October 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be considered  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the
Calendar Year  2005B  (CY05B)  (5  December  2005)  (P0405B)  Major  Central
Selection Board (CSB) with inclusion of his Squadron  Officer  School  (SOS)
Training Report (TR) in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) and  his  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) corrected to reflect his correct  assignment  history.


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  SOS  TR  was  not  included  in  his  OSR  for  the  CY05B  Major  CSB.
Additionally, his OSB did not reflect  his  correct  assignment  history  to
include concurrent dates for the CY05B Major CSB board members.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his SOS TR.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the MilPDS, the applicant is currently serving on  active  duty
in the grade of captain with a date of rank of 28 May 2001.  He has a  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date of 1 January 1993 and  a  Total  Active
Federal Commissioned Service Date of 1 June 1997.

The applicant has one nonselection to the grade of major by the CY05B  Major
CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  DPPPO states  that
although the applicant’s SOS TR was not included in the  OSR,  the  fact  he
completed SOS training in residence was reflected on  his  OSB.   Therefore,
the board members had knowledge that the SOS TR existed  and  were  able  to
factor it in the promotion selection process.  Since the board  members  had
the P0405B OSB to review, DPPPO does not support SSB consideration.

DPPPO states it is the officer’s responsibility to ensure  the  accuracy  of
his record.  Although the applicant reviewed his Officer Preselection  Brief
(OPB) prior to the board, he does not provide any evidence that he  reviewed
his OSR prior to the  board  convening  date.   He  should  have  taken  the
appropriate corrective action as directed in the OPB  instructions  provided
to each eligible officer prior to the  convening  of  the  CSB.   Air  Force
Instruction 36-2501, paragraph 6.3.2.2., indicates “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.”

In reference to the applicant’s claim  that  his  1997  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) was missing, DPPPO notes the initial OPR he received, based  on
the date he entered active duty, closed out on 13 May 1998; therefore,  they
suspect the applicant is referring to his 1998 report.  After reviewing  the
records, DPPPO confirmed the applicant’s OPR closing 13 May 1998 was in  his
OSR prior to the board convening.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPASA, Acquisition Officer Assignment Branch, recommends denial of  the
applicant’s request to  correct  his  assignment  duty  history  to  include
concurrent dates.  DPASA states the  applicant  has  not  provided  evidence
that his assignment history is incorrect.

The AFPC/DPASA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that AFPC’s ability to know what board members  were
thinking is speculative and ambiguous.  AFPC cannot reasonably  determine
what the board members’ thought process was when his SOS TR  was  not  in
his records.  He questions “How can  a  board  member  decipher  what  is
correct and incorrect without back-up documentation in the records?”   He
states that after reviewing his records and noticing items were  missing,
he provided his local Military Personnel flight (MPF) with a copy of  his
SOS TR in April 2005, along with a copy of his 1998  OPR,  and  his  Army
Achievement Medal; however, the copy of his SOS TR somehow never made  it
into his records even though the Army Achievement Medal did.   Therefore,
the  board  members  were  not  aware  of  his   significant   individual
achievement at SOS in which he was chosen the Outstanding Contributor  to
the success of the flight or that he went above and beyond furthering his
professional knowledge by completing an elective on Modern Warfare.  Both
were significant enough to be placed on the SOS TR but AFPC fails to even
mention or consider it.

The applicant states he  was  proactive  in  assuring  his  records  were
correct.  The  reason  AFPC  didn’t  need  to  take  any  action  on  his
assignment  history  was  because  he  was  proactive  in   getting   the
information corrected through  his  local  MPF  in  April  2006  for  the
upcoming board in  September.   He  feels  he  has  exercised  reasonable
diligence in discovering the errors and omissions in his records, in that
he  took  early  and  appropriate  corrective   action.    All   of   the
documentation provided by AFPC  as  attachments  in  their  advisory  was
provided  by  him.   However,  AFPC  makes  no  mention  of   that.    He
respectfully requests his record be considered by SSB for the CY05B Major
CSB.

The applicant’s rebuttal 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  has  requested  SSB
consideration with inclusion of his SOS  TR  in  his  OSR.   The  Air  Force
Office of Primary Responsibility confirmed the applicant’s SOS  TR  was  not
in  his  OSR  when  his  record  met  the  promotion  board;  however,  they
identified his completion of SOS was reflected  on  his  OSB,  thereby,  the
promotion board members had knowledge the SOS TR existed and  were  able  to
factor it in the selection board process.  We are  not  persuaded  that  the
missing SOS  TR  caused  the  applicant’s  record  to  be  so  erroneous  or
misleading that the  duly  constituted  selection  board,  vested  with  the
discretionary authority to select officers  for  promotion,  was  unable  to
reach a reasonable decision concerning his promotability in relation to  his
peers.  In this regard, we note that while many factors  are  considered  in
the promotion process, the most important  documents  seen  by  a  promotion
board are an  officer’s  performance  reports.   There  is  nothing  in  the
evidence provided here showing that the documents reporting on  the  quality
of the applicant’s duty performance are in any way erroneous  or  unjust  or
that  his  duty  assignments  are  improperly  recorded  on   the   reports.
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error
or injustice.  In view  of  the  above,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the applicant’s request for SSB consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 25 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR  Docket  Number
BC-2006-01041:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 06, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 19 May 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPASA, dated 18 Apr 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 12 Jun 06.




                                  JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                                   Panel Chair