RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02765
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to include his current  duty
title of “Chief, Wing Codes Training”, the year of  completion  and  school
name for his Bachelor's degree, and his Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM).


In addition he requests his corrected record be  considered  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for retention by the L0307B Reduction in Force  (RIF)
Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OSB was critical to the decision made by the RIF board.  His twelve and
one half years  of  faithful  service  was  reduced  to  an  incorrect  and
incomplete OSB.  His present duty position  involves  great  responsibility
within the Wing’s training program.  The  missing  data  deprived  the  RIF
board of seeing his true service  and  the  ability  to  make  an  informed
decision.

In support of his request, applicant provides a copy  of  his  Bachelor  of
Arts degree diploma, his AFAM certificate w/special  order  and  an  online
official  record  reflecting  his  current  duty  title.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  2
Mar 05.  Applicant has a date of separation of 29 Jan 08.

The applicant’s Officer Selection Record  (OSR)  contains  AF  Forms  707B,
Company Grade Officer Performance Reports, beginning with the rating period
ending 30 Mar 02 and ending with the rating period ending 29 Mar  06,  with
overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  In addition, his OSB contains an  AF
Form 475, Education/Training Report, documenting his completion of  Officer
Space Prerequisite Training (OSPT)/ICBM Operations Training (REACT-A).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPAO states that the applicant’s duty title at the  time  of  the  RIF
board should have read “ICBM CHIEF, WING CODES TRAINING”  vice  “ICBM  WING
CODES CONTROLLER.”  The AFPC/DPAO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.  DPSOO states the applicant did not take  the
appropriate corrective action as directed in the Officer Preselection Brief
instructions provided to each eligible officer prior to the convening of  a
board.  The applicant does not indicate what  actions  he  took  to  either
contact his MPF or anyone else in  regards  to  documentation  meeting  the
board. DPSOO advises that the applicant clearly did not exercise reasonable
diligence to ensure his record was  accurate  prior  to  convening  of  the
board.  The AFPC/DPSOO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFIT/SCH states the applicant failed to contact the Coding Branch prior  to
the board convening for a records correction.  This is a  common  error  in
MilPDS as the conversion from the old PDS to the MilPDS system  has  caused
data corruption  in  many  records.   SCH  advises  it  is  ultimately  the
individual’s responsibility to identify these errors  and  seek  corrective
action prior to selection or other boards.  The applicant’s record has been
updated as of 6 Sep 07 to reflect  the  Bachelor’s  degree.   The  AFIT/SCH
complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant states that if he knew there was more to his RIF folder than just
the Retention Recommendation Form (RRF), he would have certainly  exercised
reasonable diligence to correct both existing mistakes in his  decorations,
academic degree and the mistakes of those who prepared  the  OSB.   He  was
never given any instruction on the RIF process.  He was  verbally  informed
by those in his chain-of-command that he was eligible for the RIF and  told
the RRF would be what the decision was based on.  He was instructed not  to
write a letter to the board and to not worry about it any  further  because
the entire process was merely a formality and there was no way he could  be
separated by the RIF.  With only a seven percent chance in his career field
of being selected for non-retention, he believes the errors in the  package
reviewed by the board, played a key role in his nonselection for retention.
 The applicant’s complete letter is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 have reviewed  the  available  evidence
pertaining to the applicant’s assertions  and  we  are  not  persuaded  that
corrective action is warranted.  His contentions in  this  regard  are  duly
noted;  however,  we  agree  with  the  Air   Force   offices   of   primary
responsibility that it appears he did not exercise due diligence  to  ensure
his OPB was accurate prior to the RIF  board.   Therefore,  we  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive  evidence
showing  what  actions  he  took  prior  to  the   board   convening   which
demonstrates “reasonable diligence” in the maintenance of  his  records,  we
do not believe SSB consideration is appropriate.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2007-02765,
in Executive Session on 8 Nov 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
      Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
02765 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 27 Sep 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 25 Oct 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFIT/SCH, dated 6 Sep 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Oct 07.





                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair