RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00114
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  3 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared on him and viewed by the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be corrected to accurately reflect his duty history.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OSB prepared for the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board incorrectly reflected the wrong organizational level on his assignment effective 9 Dec 02 and also reflects the wrong Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC).  The applicant provides a chronological sequence of his efforts to correct his records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 31 May 89.  He is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY 04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  A resume of his last ten Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) reflects overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO advises that the applicant’s record has been corrected in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS).  They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPO regarding the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  Although the applicant’s OSB was incorrect, his OPRs closing 1 Jun 03 and 1 Jun 04 clearly reflect his DAFSC as “13S4” and organization of assignment as HQ AFSPC/DR.  They believe the board members had knowledge of the applicant’s increased responsibility from wing to headquarters level and factored it in when rendering their promotion recommendation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant indicates his disagreement with AFPC/DPPPO’s assertion that the board was aware of his increased responsibility from wing to headquarters level.  The applicant contrasts the purpose and content of the PRF, OPRs and the OSB.  He opines that since the promotion board reviewed some 3,900 records and were under extreme time constraints, it is “far more reasonable” that they would place more emphasis on the OSB to determine duty progression rather than cross-check the 3,900 OSBs against approximately 156,000 pages of OPRs, training reports, and medals for accuracy.  He believes it is reasonable that the promotion board members could have missed the inaccuracies of his OSB, which misrepresented four and one-half years on the job.  The applicant further asserts that the corrected OSB represents a significant improvement to his career history by accurately reflecting his increased responsibility at the headquarters level.  He notes that two senior officers that previously served on boards advised him they placed a “high” degree of reliance on the OSB and PRF.

In further support of his appeal, applicant attaches a copy of a letter sent to him in response to an appeal of his PRF, copies of the correct and incorrect OSBs, and a copy of his “as met” Officer Selection Record.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  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 primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We believe that the incorrect duty title on the applicant’s OSB constitutes harmless error.  Additionally, although the applicant provided a chronological log of his efforts to keep his records accurate, we note that his contested OSB is the same as his Officer Preselection Brief (OPB).  The applicant states that when he reviewed the OPB, he “detected no errors.”  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 Docket Number BC-2005-00114 in Executive Session on 20 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 8 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 05, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair