RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02349

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect the correct duty title and assignment history and she receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Selection Board. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

From 30 Jun 95 - 23 Jul 98 she was assigned as a Special Projects Element Monitor (PEM) in SAF/AQS, a highly desirable position for officers in the acquisition field.  In her OSB, this duty title was missing -- a duty title from her next assignment was listed in its place.  She believes that when her duty title was updated in 1998, the previous duty title was overwritten.  She discovered the error before the board but the change was not made in time.  The OSB is what the promotion board looks at for their initial impression; the PEM duty title wasn’t there to help make a more favorable first impression of her record.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submitted a copy of her Officer Selection Brief and duty history.

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 CY99A Lieutenant Selection Board. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAS stated that he applicant’s Duty Title on her OSB from Jun 95 to Jul 98 incorrectly read “Chief, Financial Management Branch”, which was her new position in SAF/FMB beginning Jul 98.  From Jun 95 to Jul 98 she actually worked in SAF/AQS as the “Special Projects Program Element Monitor.”  This error has been corrected in her record.

AFPC/DPAS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial and states the AFI 36-2501, paragraph 6.3.2.2. specifically states “Do not have an SSB if, by exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission and could have taken corrective action before the originally schedule board convened.”  In this case, the applicant has not provided proof that she “exercised reasonable diligence” to correct these errors prior to his promotion board.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 27 Nov 02 for review and comment.  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 an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the of the Board is not convinced that the applicant exercised reasonable diligence in having her record up-to-date prior to the convening of the selection board in question.  Applicant states that she discovered the error on her preselection brief (POB) prior to the selection board but failed to make the necessary changes.  In this respect, the Board notes that she has not provided sufficient evidence to show she did not receive her selection brief 90 days prior to the convening of the selection board.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board does not recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket Number 02-02349 in Executive Session on 29 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPAS, undated.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Nov 02
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.