RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03095
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 APR 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  considered  by  a  Special  Selection   Board   (SSB)   for
Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) selection by  the  CY05B
(5 Dec 05) (P0405B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB),  with  his
Air Medal (AA), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC), his  AA  3OLC,  and
his Distinguished  Flying  Cross  (DFC)  included  in  his  Officer
Selection Record (OSR).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During CY05B Major’s board neither his selection brief nor his  OSR
reflected award of the AA  2OLC,  AA  3OLC,  or  the  DFC,  thereby
presenting a lesser appearing record.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted  a  copy  of  officer
selection brief (OSB), and copies of the citations for award of the
AA 2OLC, AA 3OLC, and the DFC.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was selected to the rank of major by the CY05B (5 Dec 05)
(P0405B) Major CSB with a  date  of  rank  of  1  Nov  06.   He  is
currently serving with a duty title of Flt CC/Wpns Off/Wg Life Spt.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAFE reviewed this  application,  stating,  in  part,  the
“select” status is a direct result of an officer’s promotion  board
order of merit.  The top 20% of a line officers  major’s  board  is
identified as a IDE “select,” the remaining are categorized as  IDE
“candidates.”   Any  changes  to  IDE  “select”  status   must   be
accomplished by officer promotions.

The applicant will not be considered by DPAFE for  actual  IDE  in-
residence  attendance  until  the  2007   Developmental   Education
Designation Board (DEDB).  His promotion  will  be  considered  for
their first look on the 2007 DEDB.

HQ AFPC/DPAFE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed this  application  and  recommended  denial,
stating,  in  part,  in  reviewing  the  applicant's  record,  they
recognized his Air Medal citations were not reflected in  his  OSR;
however, the medals were reflected on his Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB).   Therefore,  the  board  members  had  knowledge  that  the
decorations existed and were able to factor them in  the  promotion
selection process.  The applicant's DFC was not included in his OSR
or  reflected  on  his  OSB.   However,   it   is   the   officer's
responsibility to ensure the accuracy of his record.  The errors on
his OSB were discoverable and fixable had the  applicant  carefully
reviewed his Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to  the  board.
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.  Therefore,  we  stand  by  AFI  36-2501,
paragraph 6.3.2,2.,  that  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."  After a  careful  review
of the application, we recommend the AFBCMR  deny  the  applicant's
request for SSB consideration with the inclusion of  his  citations
and his DFC reflected on his OSB. The applicant  does  not  provide
any documentation to show what action he took to correct his OSB or
OSR prior to convening of the P0405B CSB.

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

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the  applicant
on 1 Dec 06 for review and comment within  30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (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 error or injustice.  We took notice of
the applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the
case.  DPAFE,  Officer  Developmental  Education  has  advised  the
applicant that he will be considered for  actual  IDE  in-residence
attendance by the 2007 Developmental  Education  Designation  Board
(DEDB).  In respect to the  applicant’s  consideration  by  Special
Selection Board, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of
the Air Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or an injustice.  The  Board  noted
it appears the error in the applicant’s Officer Preselection  Brief
was discoverable prior to the CY05B Major  CSB.   The  error  could
have been corrected had the applicant carefully  reviewed  his  OPB
prior to the board as directed in the OPB instructions provided  to
each  eligible  officer  before   the   convening   of   the   CSB.
Furthermore, we believe  that  he  failed  to  exercise  reasonable
diligence in not discovering the error regarding his  Distinguished
Flying Cross citation in a timely manner.   Had  he  done  so,  the
correction would have been included in his officer selection record
during the CY05B CSB.  In view of the foregoing and in the  absence
of sufficient persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

___________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-03095 in Executive Session on 1 February  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
      Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAFE, dated 24 Oct 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.




                                   CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair