RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02556
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Years (CY) 1996C (CY96C), 1997C (CY97C), 1998B (CY98B), 1999A (CY99A), 1999B (CY99B), and 2000A (CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards, be corrected to reflect his duty title of “Chief, Administrative Department, Joint Training Instructor Pilot," effective 1 May 95, and his assignment to the 35th Flying Training Squadron, Training Squadron THREE (VT-3), Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Florida; and, that he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with his corrected record and an opportunity to provide information concerning his job title and positions in a United States Navy squadron so that the board can accurately rate his record for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

An SSB review and grade his record fairly in accordance with AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-2506 for all of his above the promotion zone (APZ) promotion boards for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel; and, that the board be given instructions concerning fair and accurate grading of APZ records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

(DD Form 149 - A1)

His duty qualification history brief did not accurately indicate his assignment to VT-3 and Whiting NAS, resulting in a conflict between the brief, the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), and his top Officer Performance Report (OPR).

His job title and position within VT-3, a United States Navy squadron, while commensurate with his rank for a Navy squadron, caused confusion because of a similar Air Force job title which belongs to a much lower ranking officer in an Air Force squadron.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, copies of his duty qualification history brief, 30 Apr 96 OPR, CY96C PRF, extracts from AFI 36-2501, and Navy squadron organizational charts.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A1.

(DD Form 149 - A2)

All of the lieutenant colonel promotion boards that he has met since his primary board have violated AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-2506.  During these boards, the board members improperly rated APZ officers’ records in a manner not in accordance with the Air Force instruction.  During all of these boards, the board members were biased against APZ officers, and they did not fairly evaluate the records of those officers who were APZ when compared to officers in the promotion zone (IPZ).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, excerpts of AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-2506, an electronic mail message regarding briefing slides, and copies of briefing slides.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A2.

_________________________________________________________________

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 major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Feb 93.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Dec 80.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1991 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	   16 May 91			Meets Standards
	    2 Dec 91			Meets Standards
	    3 Sep 92			Meets Standards
	    3 Sep 93			Meets Standards
	   30 Apr 94			Meets Standards
	   30 Apr 95			Meets Standards
      # 30 Apr 96			Meets Standards
     ## 30 Apr 97			Meets Standards
    ### 15 Feb 98			Meets Standards
   #### 24 Jul 98			Meets Standards
  ##### 24 Jul 99			Meets Standards
 ######  1 Jun 00			Meets Standards
#######  1 Mar 01			Meets Standards

     # Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY96C (8 Jul 96) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

    ## Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY97C (21 Jul 97) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

   ### Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B (1 Jun 98) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

  #### Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

 ##### Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 Nov 99) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

###### Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

###### Top Report at the time he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) Lieutenant Colonel Board; however, the results have not been released.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO indicated that the applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) displayed an incorrect picture of his assignment history resulting in an incorrect representation of his career progression.  According to AFPC/DPAO, the applicant was missing the duty title of “Chief, Administrative Department, Joint Training Instructor Pilot, Whiting Field,” effective 1 May 95.  Hence, his duty history was not accurate when his records were reviewed by the Nov 00 Lt Col Promotion Board.  His current Military Personnel Flight has updated his duty history to accurately reflect his OPRs.

AFPC/DPPPO deferred to AFPC/DPPPO for the SSB recommendation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration.  AFPC/DPPPO noted that the PDS system now reflects the correct duty history entry effective 1 May 95.  According to AFPC/DPPPO, the entry was entered into the PDS in time to appear on the applicant’s OSB for the P0501B board.  AFPC/DPPPO indicated that the 1 May 95 OPR and the PRF reflected the correct duty title even though the OSB did not.  That entry was from six years ago and should have also been discovered during the pre-board reviews.  Since this was a minor administrative error, they do not believe it was the direct cause of the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.  

According to AFPC/DPPPO, the applicant received an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) several months prior to each of his six lieutenant selection boards.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  If any errors are found, corrective action must be taken prior to the selection board, not after it.  Also, each officer eligible for promotion consideration is advised of the entitlement to communicate with the board.  The applicant could have used this means to inform the board of the incorrect duty history data; however, they have determined that he did not do so.

While it may be argued that the contested duty history data was a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, AFPC/DPPPO indicated that there was no clear evidence that it negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  In their view, the board had the correct information for their consideration, and they trust that the data was taken into consideration in the selection process.  They were not convinced that the incorrect duty history information contributed to the applicant’s nonselection.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPB recommended denial.  They indicated that a review of the records pertaining to the boards in question fail to provide a single piece of evidence that would cause them to believe the boards were in violation of any governing directive.  Each board was processed through appropriate Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) and Air Force legal reviews before being approved.  

According to AFPC/DPPB, each board was charged to use the whole person concept when evaluating the records.  A review of the applicant’s records reveals that he has performed flying duties only since his accession into the Air Force; i.e., no career broadening assignments, and has not completed an advanced academic degree.  In AFPC/DPPB’s view, these are critical deficiencies when competing for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommended denial.  According to AFPC/JA, the applicant has failed to meet his burden of showing material error or injustice warranting any corrective action.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that he has reviewed the advisory opinions concerning his request for correction of his records and has found that they did not accurately address his findings of the facts to his case.  He requests that the Board set aside the opinions and review his original packages and his rebuttal letter in full, and then make a decision on his requests.  He believes that the facts he presented will compel the Board to rule in his favor.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The portion of the application pertaining to the CY96C and CY97C OSBs was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

2.  The portion of the application pertaining to the CY98B, CY99A, CY99B, and CY00A OSBs was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. 

	a.  With regard to the applicant’s request that the OSBs prepared for consideration by the CY96C, CY97C, CY98B, CY99A, CY99B, and CY00A boards be amended to reflect his correct duty title and assignment, we note that the applicant’s duty history and assignment have been corrected administratively. However, we are not inclined to recommend SSB consideration with corrected OSBs.  The available evidence reveals that the incorrect duty title and assignment have been a part of his records since the CY96C board.  We find no evidence that the applicant did not receive an OPB prior to the convening of that board, as well as the subsequent boards.  Therefore, in our view, not only did he have ample opportunity, he had a responsibility to ensure that his records were correct prior to being considered for promotion.  Furthermore, we note that his OPR and PRF for the CY96C board reflected the correct duty title and assignment, so the board had the correct information for its consideration.  Therefore, in the absence of clear and convincing 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 conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorably action on the applicant’s request for SSB consideration with his corrected records.

	b. The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions regarding the promotion boards, particularly that the APZ promotion boards were in violation of AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-2506, were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by AFPC/DPPB and AFPC/JA concerning this matter.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendations of the AFPC/DPPB and AFPC/JA and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request that an SSB review and grade his record fairly in accordance with AFI 36-2501 and AFP 36-2506 for all of his above the promotion zone (APZ) promotion boards for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel; and, that the board be given instructions concerning fair and accurate grading of APZ records 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 23 Jan 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 5 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 5 Oct 01, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 21 Nov 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 7 Dec 01.

    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 01.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Dec 01.