RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00908
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted promotion consideration to colonel by special selection board (SSB) by the CY00A (17 Jul 00) (PO600A) central colonel selection board.

The Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) rendered on him for the periods closing 10 September 1978 and 10 September 1979, be declared void and removed from his records based on the principle of accuracy instead of timeliness of his appeal.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The citation for the Meritorious Service Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM, 2OLC) was not in his officer selection record (OSR) and the MSM, 4OLC was not reflected on his officer selection brief (OSB) when he was considered for promotion to colonel by the CY00A central colonel selection board.

His first two Officer Effectiveness Reports were documented to be in error but were not removed from his record due to timeliness over the principle of accuracy.  In the case of errors with his DOR, the principle of accuracy was applied over the principle of timeliness.  When he entered active duty on   5 Jul 82 in the grade of captain after four years in the Air Force Reserve, he was given a DOR of 16 Feb 82 for promotion purposes.  Based on his review of regulations regarding constructive service for reserve chaplains, he challenged by phone and in writing the DOR decision.  He believed that the correct DOR was 5 Jul 81.  His appeal was denied and he took no further action trusting that if 5 Jul 81 was correct, it would be discovered during audits of his personnel records.  Such an audit was conducted in 1988 and his DOR was established as     5 Jul 81.  As a result, he was promoted to major by a special selection board (SSB) and received an earlier pin on date.  Four years later, another audit determined that his DOR to captain should have been 5 Jul 80.  He inquired through his chain of command and the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) about the reasons for this change and sought to keep the 5 Jul 81 DOR.  He talked with the individual that conducted the audit leading to the change and was told that the new DOR was correct.  The applicant points out that although it may have been correct, it took place 10 years after the fact and was, therefore, not timely.  He would now like the principle of accuracy applied in regards to the removal of the two OERs that ARPC and the AFBCMR declined to remove from his records based on timeliness.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty as a Chaplain in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 16 Feb 82.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to colonel (O-6) by the CY98C (1 Dec 98) and CY00A (17 Jul 00) central colonel selection boards.  By Special Order (SO) GA-118, dated 31 Aug 95, the applicant was awarded the MSM, 2OLC.  By SO G-GA82, dated 30 May 00, he was awarded the MSM, 4OLC.  

On 13 Sep 94, the AFBCMR considered and denied based on timeliness a request from the applicant to remove two OERs, closing out 10 Sep 78 and 10 Sep 79 from his records.

A profile of the applicant’s last ten OPRs follows:

	  Closeout Date				Overall Evaluation

	    15 Apr 91				  Meets Standards	    15 Apr 92				  Meets Standards
	    15 Apr 93				  Meets Standards
	    15 Apr 94				  Meets Standards
	   *15 Apr 95				  Meets Standards
	    15 Apr 96				  Meets Standards
	    15 Apr 97				  Meets Standards
	  **15 Apr 98				  Meets Standards
	    15 Apr 99				  Meets Standards
	    15 Apr 00				  Meets Standards

* First OPR as a Lt Col 
** Top Report during the CY98C Lt Col selection board

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The portion of the application to appeal the MSM, 2OLC is not timely.  They agree with the applicant that this citation was missing from his OSR.  The applicant’s OSB did reflect the MSM, 2OLC, however.  The promotion board was therefore aware of the decoration.  They are not convinced that the missing decoration citation contributed to the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.

In reference to the applicant’s contention that the MSM, 4OLC, was not reflected on his OSB, the citation was filed in his record when the board convened.  As with the other decoration, the board was aware of the decoration and what level decoration was awarded.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by stating that he understands the proposal that the missing MSM is not a major factor in consideration for promotion.  He indicates that he firmly believes, however, that the missing decorations together with the detailed factors he spelled out in his application are the main reasons he was not promoted to colonel (O-6).  The applicant speculates about what effect the change of his DOR and the presence of two OERs with errors may have had on his promotion opportunity.  He asks for guidance as to the best manner in which to present his case.  He also talks about the anomalies created in his record by the second change of his DOR.  The applicant further gives examples of his performance although he is now twice passed over to colonel  (O-6).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  That portion of the applicant’s appeal pertaining to his  request for an SSB is timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting the Board grant an SSB.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

4.  We note the previous Board’s decision to invoke timeliness regarding the applicant’s request to remove the two OERs closing out 10 September 1978 and 10 September 1979.  The evidence provided is not new and relevant.  Therefore, we find no compelling reason to grant the relief requested.

_______________________________________________________________

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 5 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jun 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair