RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02152
				INDEX CODE:  131.00

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) that met the Calendar Year (CY) 2000 Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to reflect his duty title as Chief, Standardization/Evaluation Division, as a group level position.

He also requests promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) by the CY00 board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he discovered the error in August/September 2000, he went directly to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to try to get the error corrected.  He was informed by personnel at the MPF that the personnel system was down Air Force wide and it would be down for some time and there was nothing they or the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) could do at that time.  It was suggested he return in a month and hopefully the system would be working.  He agreed to return in a month because he believed in the integrity of the personnel system and what an Air Force officer was telling him--without getting anything in writing.  He made several visits to the MPF to have the error corrected and each time he was told the system was not working.  On his final visit to the MPF, 30 days prior to the board, he was told the system was still down and many duty titles were going to be incorrect for the board.  He was advised by personnel since his duty title on his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was correct, the board would have the correct information.  

He tried to the best of his ability to get the error corrected.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A, CY01B, CY02B and CY03A lieutenant colonel central selection boards.

On 6 October 2003, HQ AFPC/DPPPOC requested the applicant provide additional documentation to include the PRF he received prior to the CY00A CSB.  The applicant provided the PRF.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION
			  4 Dec 96		Meets Standards
			  4 Dec 97		Meets Standards
			  4 Dec 98		Meets Standards
			 14 Mar 00		Meets Standards
			 14 Mar 01		Meets Standards
			 15 Oct 02		AF Form 475
			 14 Mar 02		Meets Standards
			  8 Apr 03		Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAO states the applicant’s CY00 lieutenant colonel CSB Officer Selection Brief (OSB) contained incorrect assignment history information.  The applicant’s MPF obtained, reviewed, and verified supporting documentation and has updated the applicant’s duty history.  They defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPOO for SSB consideration.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPOO states the applicant contends his OSB did not reflect his 14 January 2000 duty title, showing him in a group level position, thus causing the board not to see his growth potential and ability for promotion.  However, in reviewing the applicant’s record, they noted in block 8 of the OPR closing 14 March 2000, which was the top report for the CY00A CSB, and his PRF, reflected his organizational and squadron level position in clear text.  Although his top line duty title was missing on his OSB, the board reviewed his OPR and PRF, which showed his career progression from squadron to group level.

The applicant alleges he made several attempts to have this error corrected prior to the board.  However, he did not follow up to ensure the error was corrected.  Nor, has he provided 
documentation to substantiate what action he took to correct his record.  Also, since the applicant was aware of the error and knew the information had not been corrected, he could have written a letter to the board informing them of his missing duty title.  DPPPOO verified that the applicant elected not to exercise that option.

DPPPOO recommends the applicant’s request be time-barred.  However, if the board considers the appeal on merit, they then recommend the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his request should not be time barred.  The rules cannot be changed in mid-stream.  Although, the Board essentially had all the correct information available, they also had information that was incorrect.  He believes that in the final rounds, when board members were looking for reasons to distinguish between the promote and don’t promote records, they may have glanced at his duty title history, and thought he was in a squadron level position and moved him to the don’t promote pile.  He also states it was possible the board noticed the conflict between his job history and the PRF and used this against him.  When he realized this error would not be corrected prior to the convening of the board, he asked other O-6s if he should write the board and they advised him not to write the board.  He believes he has a valid request for an SSB and if he meets an SSB, no matter what the outcome, justice would have been served (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 an error or injustice.  Although the 2000 duty history entry was inaccurate on the applicant’s OSB at the time he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel in 2000, we do not believe this fact, in and by itself, is sufficient to warrant approval of the requested relief.  The available evidence indicates the position he held was accurately reflected on his performance report closing 14 March 2000.  He apparently changed positions on 14 June 2000 and became the Chief, Standardization/Evaluation Division, as reflected on his PRF for the CY00A lieutenant colonel board.  These documents were available to the selection board in question and therefore, we must conclude the selection board did have access to the cited information.  Although the applicant asserts he made several attempts to get his duty title corrected, he presents insufficient evidence of due diligence on his part to correct his record.  Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis on which to favorably consider 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 BC-2003-02152 in Executive Session on 10 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Officer Selection Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 12 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Jan 04.