RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03335
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 1 Sep 98 through 31 Aug 99 be substituted with a reaccomplished report that includes a recommendation for Professional Military Education (PME).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The omission of a recommendation for PME was inadvertent and was the result of a hurry to complete the OPR and a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).  During the time that his OPR was prepared, his rater was busy preparing other OPRs and PRFs.  He sent his rater a draft report that contained a recommendation for the wrong level of PME, Senior Service School (SSS) vice Intermediate Service School (ISS).  The incorrect recommendation led to his being contacted to ascertain the correct level of PME.  It was his understanding after it was pointed out that he was eligible for ISS not SSS that the correct recommendation would be placed on his OPR.  When he received a copy and the recommendation was omitted, he contacted his rater and was told that it was a mistake.  When he discussed this with his rating chain, he was told that they did not think it would have an impact.  He believes that the omission of a recommendation for PME adversely impacted his opportunity for selection to attend ISS.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his ERAB appeal, a letter of support from his rating chain at the time, a newly accomplished OPR, and copies of several of his previous OPRs.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Sep 86.  A resume of the applicant’s last ten OPRs follows:

	Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	  31 Aug 93				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 94				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 95				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 96				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 97				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 98				Meets Standards
	 *31 Aug 99				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 00				Meets Standards
	  31 Aug 01				Meets Standards
	  01 Jul 02				Meets Standards

*Contested Report

On 26 Jul 02, the applicant appealed to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to substitute the OPR closing out 31 Aug 99 with a reaccomplished report.  The ERAB denied the applicant’s request on 17 Sep 02.

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to add a PME recommendation to his OPR.  Applicant has provided a letter from his additional rater acknowledging that the applicant’s rater failure to make a PME recommendation was due to an administrative oversight.  The applicant has not provided supporting documentation from the rater himself.  Further, the additional rater only supports adding the PME recommendation to make him more competitive to attend PME in-residence.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO addresses the issue of the applicant’s incorrect Officer Selection Brief (OSB) submitted in a separate application and if it warrants consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  They recommend that the applicant be denied promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by SSB.

The incorrect duty title entry on the applicant’s OSB has been a matter of record for well over eight years.  He has not provided a concrete explanation for filing so late to correct this error.  The error has been corrected in the military personnel data system.  However, each officer eligible for promotion consideration by the CY01B board received an officer preselection brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to the board convening in Nov 01.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB advise the officer to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If they find errors, they must take corrective action prior to the board convening.  The applicant has not demonstrated reasonable diligence in the maintenance of his records.

Although the duty title was incorrect on the OSB, the correct duty title was reflected on the applicant’s corresponding OPR.  They believe that the board was able to distinguish the difference between the information reflected on the OSB and the information reflected on the OPR.

Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) including the promotion recommendation form, officer performance reports, decorations, etc., assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military education.  AFPC/DPPPO is not convinced that the incorrect duty title from eight years ago contributed to the applicant’s nonselection.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

___________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

__________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02-03335 in Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Dec 02.