RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00725

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the CY98B (P0598B) Below-the-Promotion Zone (BPZ) Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98, be corrected; and, he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with his corrected record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OSB contained numerous errors in the Assignment History section.  These errors conflicted with his OPRs and master records.  He never received an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) affording him the opportunity to correct the errors in his record before the convening of the board.  As a result, his opportunity for promotion selection was prejudiced.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his OSB, training report, and OPRs.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug 99.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Sep 82.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1988 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	15 Jul 88	1-1-1
	 2 May 89	Meets Standards
	 1 Feb 90	Meets Standards
	 1 Feb 91	Meets Standards
	 1 Feb 92	Meets Standards
	31 May 92	Meets Standards
	31 May 93	Meets Standards
	31 May 94	Meets Standards
	31 May 95	Meets Standards
	 8 Nov 96	Training Report
	 8 Nov 97	Meets Standards
  #  31 Mar 98	Meets Standards

# Top Report - CY98B (1 Jun 98) BPZ Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Assignment Information Branch, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and addressed the requested action, as it appeared on the OSB, as follows:

	a.  15 Aug 95 - Applicant contends his duty location as reads "XXXXXX" should read "XX XXXX".  Based on the AF Form 475 contained in the his selection folder, they concur with the applicant and have verified update in the PDS.

	b.   Apr 94 - Applicant contends his duty command level as reads "W/B" should read "CMHQ."  Based on the OPR closing 31 May 94, they concur with the applicant and have verified update in PDS.

c.  8 Apr 91 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads "WG EXEC ADV FLT TNG 141 EXAM" should read "WG EXEC, ADV FLT TNG C141 EXAM."  While they do not concur that the duty title itself is incorrect, they do concur that the presence of the comma and C would have made the entry more readable.  PDS has been updated.

		d.  20 Sep 89 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads "C141 INSTR ACFT CMDR" should read "ADV FLT TNG C 141 INSTR ACFT CMDR."  Based on the OPR closing 1 Feb 90, they concur that half of the applicant’s duty title was omitted.  They have verified update to the PDS with one exception: "CMDR" was input as "CDR" due to the 31 character limitation of duty titles in PDS.

		e.  27 Jul 89 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads "ADV FLT TNG C141 ACFT CMDR" should read "ADV FLT TNG C141 INSTR ACFT CMDR."  Based on the OPR closing 1 Feb 90, they concur with the applicant on the omission of "INSTR" and have updated the PDS with the following exception: "CMDR" was input as "CDR" due to the 31 character limitation of duty titles in PDS.

	f.  17 Jun 88 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads "INSTR AC C141" should read "INSTR ACFT CMDR C141."  Based on the OPR closing 15 Jul 88, they do not concur that the duty title itself is incorrect; only that a poor choice of acronyms were used.  They have updated PDS to reflect the requested duty title.

A complete copy of the DPAPS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and recommended denial.  

DPPPA noted the advisory from HQ AFPC/DPAPS1 addressing each of the errors alleged by the applicant.  On each one, AFPC/DPAPS1 has agreed to some type of correction to the PDS based on the applicant's record.  DPPPA accepted the corrections made to the PDS and added the following for the Board’s consideration.

DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that he did not receive an OPB prior to the P0598B board.  In researching the applicant's appeal, DPPPA indicated that they compared his P0598B OSB to the OSB considered by the CY97C (21 Jul 97) (P0597C) lieutenant colonel board (his first BPZ consideration) OSB and discovered that each of the errors the applicant points out on his P0598B OSB were also in existence on the P0597C OSB.  The applicant does not state whether or not he received his P0597C OPB, but we can only presume he did since he is not contesting the OSB reviewed by that board.

According to DPPPA, the OPB is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board specifically instruct him/her to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If any errors are found, he/she must take corrective action prior to the selection board, not after it.  The instructions specifically state, "Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action."  As they have stated, the same errors existed on his P0597C OSB, and the applicant has not explained why he took no action when he received his OPB for that board to get the errors corrected.  Even further, they have attached the OSB used for the CY94A (22 Aug 94) major selection board (P0494A).  The P0494A board selected the applicant for the grade of major.  They noted that with the exception of the 1 Apr 94 error (CMHQ vs. W/B), the same errors the applicant is now pointing out were also in existence at the time of the P0494A board as well.  They contend that if these errors were going to have a negative impact on his promotion opportunity, it would have happened at that time.  In DPPPA’s view, the applicant has had more than ample opportunities to ensure his assignment history was correct--even if he did not receive the OPB prior to the P0598B board.

As pointed out by HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, DPPPA indicated that each of the duty history errors were verified against the applicant's officer performance reports (OPRs).  Even though they were in error on the OSB, they were correct on the OPRs.  As such, they opined that each error, in and of itself, was a harmless administrative error.  In DPPPA’s view, the selection board had the correct information in the form of the OPRs and took this into consideration in the selection process.

DPPPA stated that, while it may be argued that the contested OSB errors were a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there was no clear evidence that they negatively impacted his promotion opportunity--particularly since he was promoted to major with these same errors on his OSB.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) (including the promotion recommendation form, officer performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military education.

According to DPPPA, the applicant has not demonstrated he exercised “reasonable diligence” in getting these errors corrected.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 14 Jun 99 for review and response.  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 probable error or injustice.  We note that the applicant’s duty history has been corrected administratively.  However, we agree with the rationale expressed by AFPC/DPPPA concerning SSB consideration with the corrected duty history.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a determination that the applicant’s record before the original selection board was so inaccurate or misleading that the board was unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his promotability in relationship to his peers, we adopt their rationale and conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 28 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 19 Apr 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 Jun 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 99.