RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02096
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His officer selection brief (OSB), as seen by the CY01B central colonel selection board, be corrected and he be considered for promotion to colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Officer Pre-Selection Brief (OPB) (Atch 2) is incorrect.  It contains several duplicate assignments, incorrect duty titles and most importantly, an assignment he never had.  He has never been assigned to Vance AFB, nor has he attended UPT.  The perception that he was eliminated from UPT adversely affected his promotion opportunity during the CY01B Colonel’s Board.  His senior rater (an Army brigadier general) states in an email dated 2 November 2001, (Atch 3) that this is one of two reasons for not assigning a DP to his PRF.  He further states that two Air Force colonels found this to be a blemish on his record and would consider this a markdown were they on a promotion board.

He PCSd from DCMA Pratt & Whitney in July 2001.  Shortly after he arrived at Wright-Patterson AFB, he received the Officer Pre-Selection Brief (OPB).  It had some errors.  Duty titles were wrong, and showed multiple assignments to the same place and an elimination from UPT.  After several attempts to correct these errors, both he and the personnel office thought all the corrections were made.  DP then sent him a corrected sheet (Atch 5); it was in a different format than the OPB.  Several corrections had been made, however later he learned that the assignment history had not been updated.  The erroneous assignment to Vance and elimination from UPT still showed in his record.  On 21 June 2002, while coordinating this package with Military Personnel they attempted to remove the assignment from his record, after several attempts they said it was successfully removed.  However, it was shown as an assignment in the December 2001 record that met the board.

At least three senior officers have said this error may have had an adverse impact of their evaluation of his record.  He requests his corrected record be submitted to the next Special Selection Board.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01B Colonel Central Selection Board.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1991 through 2001 reflect meets standards on all performance factors.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAS states that a review of applicant’s OPB shows that he is correct in his assertion that the preselection brief reflected an erroneous assignment to Vance AFB, for UPT, as his first assignment.  He served as a contracting management officer, at Pease AFB, during the dates listed for UPT at Vance.  In addition, two duplicate entries were identified by applicant on the preselection brief.  These errors have been corrected in MILPDS and the AMS data base.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that they accept the findings in the AFPC/DPAS advisory.  Each officer eligible for promotion by the CY01B board received an officer preselection brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to the central board convening date.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions contained in the Military Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPFM) attached to the OPB, and given to the officer before the central selection board, specifically instruct the officer to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If he finds any errors, he must take corrective action prior to the selection board, not after it.  The instructions (as does guidance in AFI 36-2501) 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 applicant should have ensured that all his errors had been correctly updated on his OSB prior to the board.  As such, they are not convinced SSB consideration is warranted.

They point out, in addition to the OPB the applicant received for the CY01B board for his in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) consideration, he also received OPBs for his two below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) considerations by the CY99A (2 August 1999) and the CY00A (17 July 2000) central colonel selection boards.  The 25 February 1980 duty title entry was reflected on both of the OSBs for the BPZ consideration, as well as the CY01B OSB.  They question why the applicant did not attempt to challenge the contested DAFSC when he received his OPBs for the CY99A and CY00A boards.  They have not been provided any evidence that the applicant made any attempt to correct these errors prior to this board.  Furthermore, they retrieved the OSB for the CY96C (8 July 1996) central lieutenant colonel selection board and found that it reflected the same duty history entry of 25 February 1980 as listed on his CY01B OSB.  If the presence of this entry was going to have an adverse effect on the applicant’s promotion opportunity, then they believe it would have occurred during the CY96C board.

While it may be argued that the contested duty history data from over twenty years ago was a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that it negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) (including the PRF, OPRs, officer effectiveness reports, training reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military education.  They are not convinced the contested information contributed to the applicant’s nonselection.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 November 2002, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The Air Force has indicated that the applicant is correct in his assertion that the preselection brief reflected an erroneous assignment to Vance AFB, for UPT, as his first assignment.  In view of the foregoing and in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we recommend that his record, to include his corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include an Officer Selection Brief (OSB) which is corrected by deleting the 25 February 1980 and 1 July 1992 entries under his Assignment History and showing that his duty title effective 12 June 1996 was “Commander,” rather than “Commander 17 Cons” and his duty title effective 3 July 1998 was “Commander,” rather than “Hartford Contracting Commander,” be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001B Central Colonel Board, and for any subsequent board for which the erroneous information was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 5 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAS, dated 24 Jul 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Nov 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR, dated 27 Nov 02.

                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-02096

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , to include an Officer Selection Brief (OSB) which is corrected by deleting the 25 February 1980 and 1 July 1992 entries under his Assignment History and showing that his duty title effective 12 June 1996 was “Commander,” rather than “Commander 17 Cons” and his duty title effective 3 July 1998 was “Commander,” rather than “Hartford Contracting Commander,” be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001B Central Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for which the erroneous information was a matter of record.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency