RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02408
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Board and in-residence Senior Service School (SSS).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  The CY99B selection board was presented and considered an outdated Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, for selection at the 30 November 1999 Selection Board.  The Board was presented the PRF submitted to the CY99A board held 19 April 1999 as indicated in the “As Met” record provided by AFPC/DPPBR on 20 March 2000 and the unseen PRF did not include an appropriate “job push” statement.

2.  His OPRs and PRFs during his assignment to Los Angeles AFB failed to fully address the duties he performed.

3.  His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY99B board reflected two incorrect duty titles and incorrect command levels in the duty history area.

4.  His training report closing out 17 April 1998 was filed out of sequence in his record. 

5.  There were typographical errors on his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) citation for the period 23 August 1989 through 5 May 1994.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a letter from his commander, dated 21 August 2001, Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs), for the CY99A and CY99B Board, Officer Selection Brief, prepared 16 November 1999, Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 4 March 1998 and 4 March 1999, the citation to accompany the award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 November 1999) and CY00A (28 November 2000) Selection Boards.

He was also considered by the CY01B (5 November 2001) central lieutenant colonel selection board; however, promotion results are currently pending and not releasable at this time.

The citation to accompany the award of the MSM did reflect two typographical errors.  The words “laboratory” and “pry” should be capitalized and were not.

According to AFPC/DPPB, the Training Report closing 17 April 1998 was misfiled; however, this error has been corrected.

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY99B Selection Board in the Assignment History section, reflected a duty title of “ACQUISITION MANAGER INSP” for the 8 May 1994 and 1 August 1994 entries.

OPR profile since 1996, follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

		      20 Jan 96              Meets Standards (MS)
		      15 Jun 96				(MS)
		      15 Jun 97				(MS)
		       1 Mar 98				(MS)
		      19 Jan 99				(MS)
		      30 Aug 99				(MS)
		      31 May 00				(MS
		      31 May 01			(MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAP indicates that reconsideration for in-residence Senior Service School (SSS) selection can only occur if the applicant is selected for lieutenant colonel by an SSB.  If the applicant is granted an SSB and is selected for lieutenant colonel then he should be reconsidered for in-residence SSS.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPB indicates that the applicant claims the wrong PRF met the CY99B board.  After the results of a central selection board are announced, PRFs are removed from the Officer Selection Record and passed to the Automated Records Management System work center (DPSAM), which commits the PRF to optical disk and destroys the original.  After that point, PRFs are only accessible to fulfill “As Met” requests, to support Special Selection Boards, and for Non-Select Counseling.  As can be seen in the attached index, the PRF in question was committed to optical disk on 19 July 1999 and thus destroyed almost 4 months prior to the CY99B selection board.  When that board met, the hard copy of the PRF no longer existed, and thus could not have been in his record.  They regret the error in providing the wrong copy to the applicant in his “As Met” copies, however the correct PRF was on file when he met the CY99B Board.

The applicant also claims the training report (TR) was filed out of sequence.  Upon examination of the record, they found that the TR in question was indeed filed slightly out of sequence.  The TR closed out on 17 April 1998, yet was filed under an OPR closing out 4 March 1998.  This error has been corrected.  However, this error in and of itself does not invalidate the record nor rise to a level that prejudices the record.  If anything, it would suggest (even if the board members did not notice the dates) that the applicant was selected to go to DSMC earlier than he was.

He claims that the Meritorious Service Medal (Basic) has numerous typographical errors.  A close reading of the citation does indeed show two typographical errors:  “laboratory” is not capitalized and neither is “pry” both in the second line.  However, the factual data and the award level are not affected by the errors.  This office fails to see how these errors could have negatively impacted promotion consideration.  Furthermore, since March 2000 of this year when the applicant claims to have discovered, the error was never fixed, neither he nor his MPF have contacted this office to correct the problem.  He also provides no supporting documentation to show he attempted to correct the problem prior to the board.  

Of the three claims within the purview of this office, only that dealing with the PRF would have been detrimental to the member’s fair consideration for promotion.  The applicant’s claim in this application is physically impossible under the circumstances.  While the other two claims are in great part true, they are in the context of the record, not prejudicial to the applicant.

The Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPAS recommended denial.  They indicate that there were two duty title mismatches between the OSB assignment history and the applicant’s OPRs, but it was incumbent upon the applicant or organization to request official duty title changes, which they did not.  Additionally, the board had access to the correct duty titles in the OPRs.  The command level inaccuracies are also present, but in total present a higher level than warranted.  All of these errors have been corrected.  In addition, the command level entries are minor, with the actual level of responsibility being contained in the OPRs, not in the OSD summary.  

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicate that the applicant provides no supportive documentation IAW AFI 36-2401.  Paragraph A16.2.2 (changing section IV of the PRF) requires concurrence of both the senior rater and Management Level Review president.  HQ AFPC/DPPBR provided an advisory stating the correct PRF did meet the CSB and a copy of the document was retrieved from the Automated Records Management System was the same as the applicant provided.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicate that the 90-100 days prior to each of the applicant’s promotion boards, he received an officer pre-selection brief (OPB), which contained the same data that would appear on his OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board specifically instruct him to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  The instructions also provide addresses, and in most cases, phone numbers for each area responsible to assist the officer who identifies discrepancies.  If any errors are found, he 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.”  The written instructions also explain the opportunity to communicate with the board president.  The applicant could have used this means to inform the board president of the correct effective date for his most recent duty title.  However, they have verified the applicant elected not to exercise this entitlement.

The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 December 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly reviewing the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be provided SSB consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  We note the Air Force acknowledges that the contested Training Report was out of order in his officer selection folder, that there were two typographical errors on his MSM, and that corrections have been made to his OSB regarding the Command Level of several assignments.  However, in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a determination that the applicant’s record before the original selection was so inaccurate or misleading that the board was unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his promotability in relationship to his peers, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  In view of the foregoing, we are compelled to conclude that these constitute harmless errors.  In summary, we do not find applicant’s numerous assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rational expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on these requests.

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 30 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

    Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAP, dated 30 October 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPBR, dated 9 November 2001, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPAS, dated 6 December 2001.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 December 2001.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 December 2001.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 December 2001.