RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00748
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.01, 131.10

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

______________________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY96 Medical Corps (MC) Selection Board, which convened on 12 Nov 96; and that the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY96 MC Selection Board be corrected to show her race is African American and she was certified by the American Board of Family Practice.

______________________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her record before the CY96 MC Colonel Selection Board failed to include evidence of her board certification as a family physician since 1988, with recertification in 1995.  The omission of her certification adversely affected the board’s view of her career development.  Since coming on active duty, she has had some of the toughest jobs in the Medical Service and has performed commendably, receiving a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation for promotion to colonel, below the zone, from an Air Materiel Command (AMC) level board.  She provided verification of her board certification to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) within 60 days of receiving the information in 1995, and in sufficient time to have her record properly reflect her accomplishments.  She was not aware of the error prior to the selection board because the History Brief she received did not have the same information as the OSB she received in Feb 99.  She was unable to make a proper comparison of the information she was provided and the information contained in her records for review by the board.  Additionally, her OSB listed her race as caucasian.

In support of her appeal, Applicant provided the recertification letter from the American Board of Family Practice, dated 11 Sep 95; her PRF for the CY94 MC Colonel Selection Board; and the OSB for the CY96 MC Colonel Selection Board (Exhibit A).

______________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information obtained from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that Applicant is a Reserve officer who was ordered to extended active duty on 1 Jul 84, in the grade of captain.  She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade, effective 18 Nov 91.  Her total active federal commissioned service date (TAFCSD) is 30 Sep 81.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since attaining the grade of lieutenant colonel follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 1 Aug 92	Meets Standards
	 1 Aug 93	Meets Standards
	 1 Aug 94	Meets Standards
	18 Jun 95	Meets Standards
         *	18 Jun 96	Meets Standards
	18 Jun 97	Meets Standards
	18 Jun 98	Meets Standards
	 3 Jan 99	Meets Standards

*Top report CY96 MC Colonel Selection Board

Documentation in Applicant’s selection record indicates that the letter from the American Board of Family Practice, dated 11 Sep 95, was filed on 10 Jan 97.  Her OSB for the CY95 (BPZ), CY96 (IPZ), and CY97 (APZ) MC Colonel Selection Boards indicated her race as Caucasian.  Her race was corrected to show “Black” on the OSB for the CY98 MC Colonel Selection Board.  She was nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY95, CY96, CY97, and CY98 boards.

______________________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The XXXXX, Officer Promotion Management, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed this application and recommended denial.  He cited AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, paragraph 6.3.2.2, which 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.”  Applicant’s initial board certification pay expired in Jan 96, and was not reinstated until receipt of the Sep 95 recertification in Dec 96, after the promotion board convened.  A copy of the recertification letter was filed in the OSR in Jan 97, also after the promotion board met.  Approximately 100 days prior to the board, officers are provided an officer preselection brief which mirrors the OSB and indicates board certification.  Applicant contends she received a history brief which did not contain the same information as the OSB.  Officers are also provided an instruction sheet for review of the brief which outlines how to correct discrepancies prior to the board.  No documentation was provided to indicate Applicant took such action or that she did not receive the officer preselection brief or the instructions that come with it.  A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The XXXXX of Operations, Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this application and stated that their records confirm that Applicant’s race on her OSBs was coded as caucasian when she was considered by the CY95, CY96, and CY97 boards.  Further research revealed that the preselection briefs sent to Applicant also showed her race as caucasian.  The OSB was corrected when she was considered by the CY98 board.  Applicant provided no evidence that she initiated any action to correct her race.  Unless she provides documentation to show she tried to correct the error during the 1995-1997 timeframe, DPPB recommended denial.  A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The XXXX, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, accepted the findings of the XXXX, Officer Promotion Management, and added that Applicant would have received her second below-the-promotion-zone consideration by the time of the CY95 board in Nov 95.  The chief questions why Applicant did not ensure a copy of her board recertification letter was placed in her OSR and that the PDS was updated prior to the board’s convening date.  The chief also questions why Applicant did not notice her decrease in pay when her board certification pay expired in Jan 96, and was not reinstated until approximately Dec 96.  With regard to Applicant’s race on her OSBs for the CY95, CY96 and CY97 selection boards, the chief could not explain the errors; however, Applicant should have noted the errors and taken action to correct them when she was provided her preselection briefs prior to those boards.  A complete copy of DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit E.

______________________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant reiterated her contentions that she made repeated efforts to correct her record prior to the CY96 board and she should not be denied the opportunity for promotion consideration because of negligence not of her doing.  She questions the relevancy of “Facts and Comments b (sic c)” pertaining to her nonselection by the CY97 and CY98 boards.  Applicant’s complete response with attachments 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 probable injustice.  We noted the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationales as the bases for our conclusion that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that she exercised reasonable diligence in ensuring the accuracy of her selection record and brief.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issue(s) 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 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 2 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 99, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Apr 99.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 13 May 99.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 Jun 99.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 99.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Aug 99, w/atchs.