RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00680
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Boards (SSBs) for the Calendar Years 1998B, 1999A and 2000A Central Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records were inaccurate when they were considered by the CY99A and CY00A boards for the following reasons.

	1.  Lack of Flight Commander duty title on Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) prepared for consideration by the three selection boards in question.

	2.  A short, premature nine-month OPR was unnecessarily generated for the CY99A board.

	3.  For unknown reasons, the same top OPR that met the CY99A board was also the top report on file at the CY00A board.  In effect, there was no fresh OPR on top to meet the CY00A board.  This seemingly violates the instructions from AFPC to MPFs.  The premature OPR for the CY99A board further contributed to negligence/oversight going into the CY00A board.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a Timeline of Relevant Information, three OSBs, a Memo for AFBCMR, three OPRs, Memo to MPF for 24 January 2000 Board, two TDY orders, 179-day Section of USAF waiver (10-day tour extension), promotion statistics, a copy of a letter to the squadron commander, a copy of a letter to the flight commander, a copy of an e-mail exchange, a copy of a letter to the former flight commander, a copy of Potential Joint Force Raters, and a copy of a letter to the CY99A Promotion Board for potential SSB.  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 captain, having assumed that grade, effective and with a date of rank of 6 March 1991.  The applicant’s total active federal military service date is 20 November 1986 and his total federal commissioned service date is 6 March 1987.  He has an established date of separation of 31 March 2007.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY98B, CY99A, CY00A, CY00B, CY01A, CY02A, and CY02B Central Major Selection Boards.  Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1995 through 2002 reflect meets standards on all performance factors.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPBR3 reviewed that portion of the applicant’s request pertaining to the OPR closing 8 December 1998 and indicated the report was not accomplished prematurely.  For every officer promotion board, a directed by HAF (DBH) date is established by Officer Promotions.  For the CY00A, that date was 8 December 1998.  This means that every officer in the Air Force meeting the board Above the Zone who did not have a new report in their promotion folder was directed to have a report closing out on 8 December 1998 as long as they had at least 60 days of supervision on that date.  DPPBR3 indicated that the OPR closing 8 December 1998 appears to be in compliance with Air Force requirements.

DPPBR3 noted that according to the OPR closing 20 March 2000, only 120 days of supervision had been acquired since 9 December 1998.  Since 60 days of supervision must be obtained to close out a DBH report, the DBH cutoff date for a board convening on 24 January 2000 would have been 24 October 2000.  The applicant would  not have had the required supervision until 20 January 2000, far too late to close out the report.  In such cases, the DBH report would be waived and the board members would view the most recent report as the top report in a member’s record.  Once again, it appears to DPPBR3 that this report appears to have met all Air Force requirements and does not look unusual or out of the ordinary.

The AFPC/DPPBR3 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that the applicant’s 15 June 1993 duty title entry was updated in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) in March 2000, after he submitted a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, to correct this error.  However, each officer eligible for promotion consideration by the CY99A, CY00A, and the CY00B boards received an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to convening of the boards.  The OPB the officer receives before the board contains the same data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions 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 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 did not take any corrective action until after the CY00A board convened in January 2000.  Since he did not exercise due diligence to ensure his record was correct prior to each of the boards, they do not believe SSB is warranted.  Furthermore, written instructions attached to the OPB explained the opportunity of communicating with the board president by writing a letter to the board as well.  The applicant could have used this means to inform the board president of the correct duty history.  They verified that he elected not to exercise this entitlement.

Additionally, although the 15 June 1993 duty title data was incorrect on the OSBs, it was correctly reflected on the applicant’s corresponding OPRs.  As such, they believe the board was able to distinguish the difference between the information on the OSBs, and the information reflected on the OPRs.

While it may be argued that the incorrect duty title from 1993 was a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that this data negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record 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 administrative error in the duty title contributed to the applicant’s promotion nonselection.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that he believes some major points have been overlooked in DPPPO’s statements.  He disagrees with their comments and recommendation for several reasons.

In summary, in light of the advisory opinions and his ongoing case package that he previously submitted, DPPPO’s recommendation should be discounted and he should be promoted on a supplemental board.  The duty title of flight commander is critical for the promotion to the rank of major.  He made numerous attempts to gather a fresh OPR for the January 2000 board.  He asks, should he be penalized because his squadron leadership shuffled him from rater to rater without the foresight to see the negative impact on promotion in his absence?  Isn’t it also a double standard that HAF can waiver OPR rules on a whim, yet won’t waiver the ones that would most help the promotion candidate?

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant contends that he should receive SSB considerations for promotion by the CY98B, CY99A and CY00A central major selection boards because his OSBs did not show he was assigned to duties as a flight commander effective 15 June 1993, the top report at the CY99A board covered a period of 128 days of supervision, and this same report was the top report on file at the CY00A board.  We have noted the assessment by the Air Force office of primary responsibility concerning these issues.  Based on their comments, it appears that, with the exception of the missing entry on his OSBs, the applicant’s selection record was properly constituted in accordance with the pertinent Air Force instructions when he was considered by the selection boards in question.  Other than his assertions, the applicant has provided no documentary evidence indicating the contrary.  As to the missing duty performance entry, we note that the cited duty title was reflected on his performance report closing 2 March 1994.  Therefore, that information was available to the selection board members when they reviewed his record.  Accordingly, in view of the above, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records were so inaccurate or misleading that the duly constituted selection boards were unable to make reasonable decisions concerning his promotability in comparison with his peers.  In view of the above, we agree with opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, the applicant’s request 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 31 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPBR3, dated 22 Apr 03.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Apr 03.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
	Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 27 May 03,
                 w/atchs.

						
						Acting Panel Chair