RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02357
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________ ______________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be changed to correct the Level of Assignment on his top two duty entries and to add his most current duty title.  

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 2002A Major Line Central Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The assignment history shows W/B for both Second Air Force positions when it should read NAF.  The position level did not accurately display the responsibility associated with the position duties.  The assignment history does not include the position change effective 1 December 2001 to Deputy Chief of Stan/Eval.  The lack of this duty position update does not show the continued career progression at Second Air Force.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of the orders assigning him to Second Air Force, a copy of the printout of his current position, a copy of the OPB for the CY02B board, and a copy of the updated OPB.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

Applicant was considered and not selected by the CY02A and CY02B Major Line Central Selection Boards, which convened on          19 February 2002 and 3 October 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO states that the applicant’s CY02B Major Central Selection Board Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflected erroneous data.  Current MilPDS and AMS data indicate that this information has subsequently been updated.

They defer to AFPC/DPPPO for SSB consideration.

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

AFPC/DPPPO states that eligible officers are provided an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) approximately 100 days prior to board convening date.  Along with the OPB, members are provided an instruction sheet that outlines how to correct discrepancies prior to the start of a promotion board.  He received an OPB and the instruction sheet in November.  Applicant has not provided any information regarding what action he took prior to the board convening to ensure his duty history was correct.  AFI 36-2501 states, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board, if, in exercising reasonably diligence, the officer should have discovered an error or omission in his/her records and could have taken corrective action”.  Since he has not demonstrated “reasonable diligence” in the maintenance of his records, they do not support promotion reconsideration on this issue.

There is no clear evidence that the incorrect duty title negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire OSR (including the promotion recommendation form, officer performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training report, 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.  The selection board had his entire officer selection record that clearly outlined his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty.  They are not convinced the lack of the duty title caused the applicant’s nonselection.  In addition, the applicant’s performance reports and Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) clearly indicate the level of his duty assignment.  Therefore, they are opposed to the applicant receiving SSB consideration on this issue.

Eligible officers are also provided the opportunity to correspond by letter with their board to address any matter of record concerning themselves that they believe important to their consideration.  If the applicant believed his duty history was relevant to the process, he could have provided this information by letter to the board.  They verified the applicant elected not to exercise this entitlement.  Therefore, they recommend disapproval of applicant’s request.  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 scheduled board convened”.  In this case, applicant has not provided proof that he “exercised reasonable diligence” to correct this errors prior to his promotion board.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that he reviewed the OPB in November 2001 at which time it was correct.  Subsequently, his duty title changed in December 2001.  The OSB used by the board was extracted on or about 5 February 2002.  It was reasonable to expect a professionally managed personnel system to capture a new duty title in that amount of time.

The missing job title is noteworthy.  The Chief of Vandenberg Team position may have been viewed with some degree of uncertainty regarding levels of responsibility and supervision, unlike the Deputy Chief of Standardization and Evaluation position at a numbered air force.  The responsibilities associated with the deputy chief position are significantly greater in terms of workload, supervisory tasks, and leadership opportunities.  In the previous position he supervised one person.  In the new position he supervise 21 people and the standardization program for an entire numbered air force.  This increase in responsibility would be seen by a promotion board as an indication of greater potential to serve in a higher grade.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is convinced that the applicant could not have taken any action to correct the errors on his OSB prior to the convening of the selection board in question.  In this regard, the majority of the Board notes that the OSB reviewed by the applicant was correct in November 2001; however, due to what appears to be an error within the MILPDS system, his new duty title was not changed on his OSB prior to the convening of the CY02A major selection board.  In view of the above and to remove any possible injustice to the applicant, the majority of the Board recommends his record be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include a corrected Officer Selection Brief showing that his Level of Assignment for his 31 October 2000 and 15 February 2001 entries was NAF, rather than W/B, and, effective 1 December 2001, he was assigned to duties as Deputy Chief of Stan/Eval, DAFSC 13S4, Level of Assignment: NAF, Major Air Command: AET, and Organization:  Air Force AF Keesler, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by the CY 2002A Major Line Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 19 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended.  Mr. James W. Russell, III voted to deny applicant's request, but does not desire to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 20 Aug 02, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Nov 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Nov 02.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, Undated.

                                   

AFBCMR 02-02357
INDEX CODE:  131.01

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 a corrected Officer Selection Brief showing that his Level of Assignment for his 31 October 2000 and 15 February 2001 entries was NAF, rather than W/B, and, effective 1 December 2001, he was assigned to duties as Deputy Chief of Stan/Eval, DAFSC 13S4, Level of Assignment: NAF, Major Air Command: AET, and Organization:  Air Force AF Keesler, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by the CY 2002A Major Line Central Selection Board.