RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01214
		INDEX CODE:  131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His duty title be corrected on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OSB that met the CY01B board reflected a duty title of "Chief, Systems Intel Branch" while his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reflected "Chief, Systems Integration Branch."  In May 2001 he requested a duty title change but due to the MILMOD conversion, the personnel specialist was unable to complete the update.  He followed up with an email on 6 Jul 01.  On 6 Aug 01, he received his Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB) and again requested the duty title change via his commander's support staff, which was passed on to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF).  He made multiple requests to correct his duty title.  When the change was finally entered into the system, it was in error.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his OSB, a copy of his PRF, a email communication, his OPB; and, his AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Oct 00 through 1 Oct 01.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 11 Mar 86, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of major having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Dec 97.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 29 Jun 93.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 5 Nov 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASL reviewed applicant's request and states that the applicant is currently serving as the Chief, Systems Integration Branch.  This duty title is now correctly reflected in MILPDS and the AMS database.  His effective date in this position is 25 May 01.  The DPASL evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPO states that although the data was incorrect on the OSB, the duty title "Chief, Systems Integration Branch" was correctly reflected on the corresponding OPR and PRF that met the CY01B board.  DPPPO believes that the board was able to distinguish the difference between the information on the OSB and the information reflected on the OPR and PRF.  There is no clear evidence that the incorrect duty title negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) assessing the whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military education.  DPPPO is not convinced the administrative error contributed to his nonselection.  

Although he states that he made multiple requests to correct the deficiency, he did not follow up on the error until after the board.  However, it was his responsibility to notify the board of the incorrect data on the OSB by letter if he believed it important to his promotion consideration.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Aug 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an injustice.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, the Board majority finds that evidence has not been presented which would lead them to believe that the duty title on his OSB had a negative impact on the selection board members.  The Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force with respect to this matter and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01214 in Executive Session on 17 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommends denial of the application.  Ms XXXX voted to grant his request, but elected not to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPASL, dated 1 May 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
               FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.