RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-00225
		IDEX CODE 131.01
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Assignment History section of his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflect a command level of “NAF” versus “DD/J” for the 23 Dec 97 entry, and the 30 Nov 99 entry be removed in its entirety. 

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration beginning with the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The 23 Dec 97 entry gave promotion boards the impression he did not accomplish a staff tour or anything above wing level.  The 30 Nov 99 entry gave the appearance of his being reassigned to the same job only at wing level.  These errors gave the impression of no “breath [sic] of experience” and no job progression, and effected all the boards he met beginning with the CY99A board. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major, with a date of rank of 6 Feb 95. 

He was considered but not selected to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01), CY02B (12 Nov 02), and CY03A (8 Jul 03) lieutenant colonel selection boards.  

The OSBs for all of these boards incorrectly reflect the 23 Dec 97 assignment history entry as having a command level of “DD/J,” rather than “NAF,” but the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 19 Nov 98, 16 Sep 99, and 30 Aug 00, showed the applicant’s correct command level as the 12th Air Force at XXXXX AFB.  The extraneous 30 Nov 99 assignment entry first appeared on the OSB for the CY00A board. 

The Performance Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for all of these boards reflected overall ratings of “Promote.”  All the PRFs reflected the applicant’s correct command level.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAO advised the applicant’s CY03A OSB contained incorrect assignment history information.  His OPRs for the period in question support his claim. The military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) continues to reflect an incomplete Assignment Duty History. Corrections to Assignment Duty History are accomplished at the servicing military personnel flight (MPF), which update MilPDS and forward an approval request to AFPC.  To date, DPAO has not received an MPF request for change to duty history on the applicant.  They defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPO for SSB consideration.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO does not dispute that an error existed on the applicant’s OSB; however, they do question the significance of such errors.  They trust the board members evaluated the officer’s entire selection record in assessing the “whole person” factors. DPPPO also notes the applicant’s PRFs and three OPRs closing out 19 Nov 98, 16 Sep 99, and 30 Aug 00, showed his organization, command, and location as “12th Air Force” or “HQ 12 AF/SE” (ACC), XXXXX AFB.  This documented evidence alone reduces the applicant’s argument that the boards may have held the impression he did not complete a staff tour or anything above wing level.  Further, AFI 36-2501 specifies that SSB consideration is not warranted 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.  The applicant did not provide any supporting evidence to speak to his actions for ensuring the accuracy of his records prior to his central selection boards convening.  In fact, the MilPDS still reflects [his duty history] inaccurately.  As the applicant has not demonstrated a material error existed which contributed to his nonselection for promotion, SSB consideration should be denied.  The applicant should work with his MPF to have his assignment history in MilPDS corrected to prevent future occurrence of this error. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant takes exception to the HQ AFPC/DPPPO advisory, contending the error in question was discovered during a non-select counseling with HQ AFPC/DPPPO following the CY03A selection board.  He does not know when or who input the data into the MilPDS, which still reflects inaccurate data.

The applicant’s complete submission is 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 to warrant SSB consideration.  In this respect, we note AFI 36-2501 specifies that SSB consideration is not warranted if, by exercising reasonable diligence, an officer should have discovered the error or omission and could have taken corrective action before the originally scheduled board convened.  In this respect, the 23 Dec 97 entry appeared on the CY99A OSB, and the extraneous 30 Nov 99 entry first surfaced on the CY00A OSB.  The applicant has not provided any evidence demonstrating he exercised reasonable diligence or took action to ensure the accuracy of his records prior to the CY99A selection board.  Indeed, the applicant contends the errors were “discovered” in a non-select counseling after the CY03A board.  This would indicate to us that he did not exercise due diligence.  Officers are responsible for reviewing their records for accuracy prior to selection boards and, as a major being considered for the grade of lieutenant colonel, the applicant should have been aware of this obligation as far back as 1999.  In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice.  Without evidence showing he responsibly attempted to correct the 23 Dec 97 entry when it surfaced on the CY99A OSB, and the 30 Nov 99 entry on the CY00A OSB, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 14 July 2004 and 13 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00225 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 4 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jul 04.

                                   Acting Panel Chair