RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01266
										  02-02454
INDEX CODE:  100.05, 131.01
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) effective 20 June 1999 be changed from “16F4A” to “P16F4AW” on his officer selection brief (OSB); his duty title effective 1 April 1995 be changed from CTP Flight Commander to CTP Flight Commander, B-1 AC, T-38 IP on his OSB; and he be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion by the CY01B Line of the Air Force (LAF) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His DAFSC and duty title were not correct on his 4 November 2001 OSB.  His DAFSC should have a “P” prefix to reflect his other primary duty as a C12 pilot performed in conjunction with his duty as an Air Attaché.  His duty title did not accurately reflect the majority of his duties for the period in question.

In support of his application, he provides three applications, including a copy of his flying history report, individual flight records report, promotion recommendation (PRF), officer performance report (OPR) and his OSB.  The applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the applicant is a rated officer who was appointed a Second Lieutenant, Regular Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 28 May 1986.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of Major (0-4) with a date of rank of 1 February 1998 and is still currently serving on active duty.

The applicant’s records met the CY01B LAF Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board P0501B on 5 November 2001.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings commencing with the report closing 30 December 1991:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION

	30 Dec 91						  MS
	26 May 92						  MS
	 9 Mar 94						  MS
	 9 Mar 95						  MS
	26 Apr 96						  MS
	15 Feb 97						  MS
	 3 Apr 98					Training Report (TR)
	20 Nov 98 (Major)			Training Report (TR)
	20 Nov 99						  MS
	19 Nov 00						  MS
    *10 Jun 01						  MS
	10 Jun 02						  MS

* Top report on file at the CY01B LAF Central Lt Col Selection Board, which convened on 5 November 2001.

The applicant’s OSB that met the board dated 5 November 2001, reflected his DAFSC and duty title effective 20 January 1999 was 16F4A and Air Attaché to Cote D’Ivoire.  The promotion board did not select the applicant for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.  He was also considered and not selected by the CY02B LAF Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (P0502B) that convened on 12 November 2002. 

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered and approved the applicant’s request to substitute corrected copies of his OPRs (with DAFSC P16F4W) closing out 20 November 1999, 19 November 2000, and 10 June 2001 as well as his P0501B PRF in his military records.  The ERAB did not approve the applicant’s request for his records to meet an SSB for promotion consideration.  The applicant’s MPF was notified of the above on 22 January 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO states that, for Foreign Area Officers, the “A” suffix denotes non-rated officers and cannot be used in conjunction with the “P” prefix.  The “W” suffix denotes rated officers and can be used with the “P” prefix.  Additionally, two suffixes are not permitted.  Therefore the correct DAFSC should have been P16F4W.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) was notified and updated the applicant’s duty history, to reflect his DAFSC as P16F4W.  DPAO recommends the applicant submit a request for an Evaluation Review and Appeals Board (ERAB) per AFI 36-2401 to correct his DAFSC on his 20 November 1999 OPR and his P0501B PRF.  The DPAO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of a change to the duty title on the applicant’s 26 April 1996 OPR, but recommends the 20 November 1999 OPR be changed to reflect “P16F4W” as the DAFSC.  DPPPEP states the applicant did not provide evidence required by the ERAB to prove his case for the 20 April 1996 OPR.  The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings from DPAO and DPPPEP that the OSB should reflect the DAFSC of “P16F4W”.  However, DPPPO states that each eligible officer for promotion consideration by the P0501B board received an officer pre-selection brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to the board convening in November 2001.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions accompany the OPB instructing the member to make any corrections to their records prior to the selection board.  The applicant did not show where he exercised “due diligence” to correct the errors prior to the board.  AFPC/DPPPO also states there is no clear evidence that the incorrect DAFSC and duty title were factors in the applicant’s non-selection.  The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims he received his OPB in mid-October, only 20‑25 days prior to the board.  He made several attempts to have corrections made to his records; however, none of the changes were successfully completed.  A week prior to the board, he asked if he could write a letter to the board explaining the error.  AFPC told him it was too late; that the board preparation had already entered a “freeze” and no other inputs were allowed.  The applicant’s review is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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

	a.  The applicant has requested SSB based on the correction to his DAFSC while he was an Air Attache.  We note that the ERAB approved substitution of corrected OPRs (with DAFSC P16F4W) for those reports closing out on 20 November 1999, 19 November 2000, and 10 June 2001.  The cited OPRs clearly showed that he was performing the duties for which the approved prefix and suffix were added to his AFSC.  In view of this, we are unpersuaded that the errors in his AFSC on the selection brief and OPRs caused his record to be so erroneous or misleading that the duly constituted selection board was unable to make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability in relation to his peers. Therefore, we have no basis on which to favorably consider the applicant’s request for an SSB based on the corrections to his AFSC.

b.  As to the applicant’s request concerning his duty title on the 1995 report, we note that the applicant has not exhausted his administrative remedies by appeal of this report to the ERAB.  Nevertheless, we have considered this matter and, after reviewing all the evidence, we agree with the assessment of the Air Force office of primary responsibility with respect to this issue.  In the absence of evidence by the applicant showing that the contested information in the 1995 report is erroneous or technically flawed, the applicant’s request for correction of his duty title on this report is not favorably considered.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 19 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Numbers 02‑01266 and 02-02454 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 10 Apr 02 & 30 Jul 02,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 12 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 24 Oct 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 Oct 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
     Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Rebuttal w/atchs, dated 25 Nov 02.