RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02835
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
      xxxx  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 APR 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar
Year 2006A (CY06A) Lieutenant Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB),
with a corrected Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB)  and  the  Meritorious
Service Medal citation closing-out on 15 January 2006, included  in  his
Officer Selection Record (OSR).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The duty history listed on his OSB was  incorrect  and  along  with  the
exclusion of the MSM from his OSR, prevented  him  from  receiving  fair
consideration by the CY06A Lieutenant Colonel CSB.

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement,
a copy of his Duty History Information, a copy of the MSM Citation,  and
Special Order GE-289.

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 Major.

On 5 January 2006, a Recommendation for Decoration (RDP) was prepared on
the applicant.  On 16 March 2006, he was considered and nonselected  for
promotion by the CY06A Lieutenant Colonel CSB.  On 7 August 2006, he was
awarded the MSM for meritorious service during  the  period  10  January
2004 to 15 January 2006.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.   DPPPO  states  in  part,  the  applicant
acknowledges the MSM awarded for  the  period  10  January  2004  to  15
January 2006, was approved on 7 August 2006, after the board  adjourned.
In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2803,  paragraph  3.4.2,  the   decoration
authority announces its  final  decision  when  approving  an  award  by
publishing special orders.  These orders serve as  the  source  document
for updating the  decoration  in  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System
(MILPDS), which subsequently is reflected on the OSB.  Because the order
for this decoration was not published until 7 August 2006, the  citation
was not included in the OSR nor was it reflected on  his  OSB  when  the
board convened on 13 March 2006.

Each officer eligible for promotion  consideration  is  advised  of  the
entitlement to communicate with the board president to call attention to
any matter of record concerning them that they believe is  important  to
his/her consideration.  As such, the applicant had the option to write a
letter to the board members informing  them  of  his  MSM,  and  it  was
verified that he did not elect to exercise this entitlement.  AFPC/DPASB
verified the 15 February 1998 and  15  August  2000  duty  titles,  were
missing on his OSB.  However, although not reflected on the P0506A  OSB,
his corresponding Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) contained the  duty
titles which the board members reviewed and took into  consideration  in
evaluating his record during the promotion process.  As such, correcting
the assignment history block on his  OSB  does  not  introduce  any  new
information that was not already considered by the board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states he disagrees with  the  DPPO  recommendation.   His
biggest concern, based upon the advice of  the  non-selection  counselor
was the lack of the MSM, not the duty history  as  stated  in  the  DPPO
advisory.  He was informed that the date of the award was  insignificant
because the PCS occurred before the board and that  is  what  should  be
considered.  The MSM sat on Major __________ desk for an unusually  long
period of time.  He did not have any knowledge that the MSM was  delayed
before the board convened.  If he did he would have written a letter  to
the board.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 the duty history listed on  his
OSB was incorrect, and the MSM closing out on 15 January 2006,  was  not
processed in a timely manner, which  prevented  his  record  from  being
fairly considered by the promotion board.  The Air Force  has  indicated
the board members had before them his OPRs, which correctly  showed  the
corresponding duty titles.  Therefore, the board members were  aware  of
his assignment history, which was considered by  the  panel  during  the
promotion process.  Also, the MSM special order was not published  until
three  months  after  the  board  convened.   We  note  that  decoration
recommendations entered  into  official  channels  within  2  years  and
awarded within 3 years of the act, achievement, or service performed are
considered timely processed.  Since this decoration was processed within
that timeframe, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
requested relief.  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 by writing
a letter to the board members informing them of his duty history and the
MSM prior to the board convening.  Therefore, in view of the  above  and
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon  which
to recommend favorable consideration of his request.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02835 in Executive Session on 6 February 2007, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member

            Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 Dec 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Dec 06, w/atchs.







                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair