RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03322
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 10 July 1990  be  removed
from his records and replaced with a reaccomplished report,  and  that
he be considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1996A Major Selection
Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Omitted from the contested report was his attendance and completion of
the four-months long Military Operations Training Course  (MOTC)  from
20 August through 13 December 1989.

Additionally, AFR 36-10 also states that when an individual is TDY  to
advanced specialization training, the time the officer is absent  will
be subtracted from the “No. Days Supervision” on the next OPR.  In his
case, the contested OPR listed 285 days of supervision, when it should
have read only 210 days due to his attendance at  the  course  for  75
days during the reporting period.

The omission of the formal advanced training and the incorrect  number
of days of supervision, acknowledged by his  rating  chain  and  other
witnesses,  indicate  that  the  contested  OPR  was  not  a  complete
assessment of his accomplishments during the contested rating  period,
nor a complete record of his preparation, training, and potential  for
advancement.

In support of his request, applicant provided his  expanded  comments,
and a copy of his appeal submitted under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2401,  which  included  copies  of  the  contested  report   and   the
reaccomplished report, and supporting statements from the  members  of
his rating chain.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 17 December 1985, applicant was  appointed  as  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force.  He was ordered to extended active  duty  on
that same date.  He served on continuous active duty,  was  integrated
into the Regular component on 25  September  1986,  and  progressively
promoted to the grade of major.

A resume of applicant’s OERs/OPRs follows:

     PERIOD CLOSING    OVERALL EVALUATION

       18 Jul 86 Education/Training Report (TR)
       18 Jan 87 1-1-1
       18 Jul 87 1-1-1
       18 Jan 88 1-1-1
       17 Jun 88 1-1-1
       28 Oct 88 Meets Standards (MS)
       28 Sep 89 MS
   *   10 Jul 90 MS
       10 Jul 91 MS
       10 Jul 92 MS
       21 Feb 92 TR
       23 May 93 MS
       23 May 94 MS
       23 May 95 MS
        6 Sep 96 TR
   #   28 Feb 97 MS

*  Contested  report.   A  similar  appeal  was  submitted  under  the
provisions  of  AFI  36-2401.   The  Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board
declined to consider the appeal and time-barred it.

# - Top report in file when considered and selected for  promotion  by
the CY97C Major Selection Board, which convened on 16 June 1997.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
recommended denial.

DPPPA  stated  the  applicant  was  considered  and  nonselected   for
promotion by the CY96A (in-the-promotion zone) Major Selection  Board.
He was later selected above-the-promotion zone (APZ) by the CY97C  (16
June 1997) major board - with the alleged flawed OPR on file.  If this
OPR was going to have an adverse effect on his promotion  opportunity,
DPPPA does not believe he would have been promoted APZ.

Noting  the  statements  from  the  evaluators  who  all  support  the
applicant in his efforts, DPPPA noted that none of them state why this
information was not available to them when the OPR was  rendered.   In
his application, applicant states, “In  a  discussion  with  the  MOTC
Admin NCO in Oct 96, I was told the standard procedure  for  the  MOTC
training staff was (and is still) to  prepare  a  classified  training
letter for all Air Force students, in lieu of the AF Form 77,  and  to
provide this letter to the individual’s commander.  This, in fact, was
done in my case and my classified training letter was provided  to  my
Headquarters (AFSAC) and my chain of command.”  The rater indicates he
assumed a training report (AF Form 475) would have  been  accomplished
by the school.  The evaluators do not state why they did not  use  the
information in the training letter provided by the school when the OPR
was prepared.  As such, DPPPA is not convinced  this  information  was
not available when the evaluators prepared the report  -  particularly
since the applicant was absent from his normal duty position for  four
months.

Based on the from date on the contested OPR (29 Sep 89) and  the  date
of completion of the MOTC course (13 Dec 89), DPPPA had  no  objection
to changing the number of days of supervision to 210.   They  did  not
support promotion reconsideration on this  issue  as  it  is  a  minor
administrative change to the OPR.

Each officer eligible for promotion consideration is  advised  of  the
entitlement to communicate with the board  president.   The  applicant
could have used this means to inform the CY96A board president of  his
attendance at the MOTC.  However, DPPPA verified the applicant elected
not to exercise this entitlement.

Any report can be rewritten  to  be  more  hard  hitting,  to  provide
embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s promotion potential.   However,
the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter  of  record.
None of the supporters of applicant's appeal  explain  how  they  were
hindered  from  rendering  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  the
applicant’s performance prior to the report being  made  a  matter  of
record.  As such, DPPPA is not convinced the contested report  is  not
accurate as written and do not support the  request  for  removal  and
replacement.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided his expanded comments concerning the timeliness  of
his application.

He further stated that the  advisory  totally  avoids  or  misses  the
central point.  Air Force regulations required that his  4-month  long
training course be documented in his OPR rather  than  in  a  training
report.  AFPC does not address the issue of fairness of  not  allowing
such a long, advanced course to  be  documented  in  his  record.   He
believes it is grossly unfair to not allow  completion  of  a  4-month
long, highly advanced course to be documented anywhere in  a  member’s
record due to admitted oversights of the supervisors.  He has provided
extensive documentation on the admitted oversights of his  supervisory
chain.

His records are incomplete as they stand now.  The report is, in fact,
accurate for what is documented there, but is incomplete  in  that  it
omits information that was required by regulation to  be  included  in
the report.

He did not submit a letter to the board president because he  was  not
aware of the error until July 1996, after the board.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice  warranting  partial  relief.
In this regard, it is apparent from the evidence provided that,  based
on the starting date of the contested report and the  completion  date
of applicant’s course, the contested report is in error  with  respect
to the period of supervision.   Therefore,  we  find  that  relief  is
warranted only to the extent of changing the period of supervision  on
the contested report.  In our opinion, this is a minor  administrative
change to the OPR and therefore does not warrant  reconsideration  for
promotion.  Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected as
indicated below.

4.  Based  on  a  review  of  the  evidence  provided,  including  the
supporting statements from the members of applicant’s rating chain, we
are  not  persuaded  that  the  report  is  an  inaccurate  or  unjust
assessment of the applicant’s performance as rendered,  only  that  it
could have been written to  include  additional  accomplishments.   We
find that no evidence has been presented showing that the  evaluators,
who were tasked with assessing the applicant’s duty performance,  were
precluded from including comments  regarding  his  completion  of  the
Military Operations Training Course.   In  addition,  except  for  the
error with respect to the period of supervision, we found no  evidence
to indicate that the report was prepared  contrary  to  the  governing
regulation.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we  find  that  there  is  no  basis  upon  which  to
favorably  consider  the  applicant’s  request   to   substitute   the
reaccomplished report in his records and to provide him  consideration
for promotion by a Special Selection Board.

___________________________________________________________________



THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that  the  AF  Form  707B,
Company Grade Officer Performance Report, rendered for the  period  29
September 1989 through 10 July 1990, be amended under Section I,  Item
6 (No. Days Supervision) to read 210 rather than 285.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 June 1998  and  14  October  1998,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Mr. John T. Dorsett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 3 Dec 97.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Dec 97.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jan 98, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 97-03322




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to (APPLICANT), be corrected to show that the AF Form
707B, Company Grade Officer Performance Report, rendered for the
period 29 September 1989 through 10 July 1990, be, and hereby is,
amended under Section I (Ratee Identification Data), Item 6 (No. Days
Supervision) to read 210 rather than 285.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency