AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

REC0,RD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
! ?M4 2 g  lggj 
.r 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00579 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF) ,  reviewed  by  the 
Calendar Year 1991B  (CYglB), Central Colonel Selection Board, be 
declared void. 
2.  A General Officer, with  Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles 
(ICBM) background, be appointed to render a new CY91 PRF. 
3 .   If  the  promotion  recommendation on  the  PRF  is  IIDefinitely 
Promotell ,  direct  a  special  selection board  (SSB) to  consider 
promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY91B selection board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
An  inquiry  was  conducted  into  llinappropriate  information  or 
proceduresll  used  to  prepare  his  PRF  for  the  CY91B  colonel 
selection board.  The General Officer designated as the Senior 
Rater  to  review  his  (applicant's) records  did  not  have  the 
appropriate background in ICBMs to afford him  (applicant) a fair 
and unbiased re-look for the CY91B PRF. 
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a letter from the 
Commander, Headquarters Air  Combat  Command  (HQ ACC/CC) ,  dated 
30 July 1996, who stated that he finds the original PRF promotion 
recommendation and narrative to be  valid, a copy of  the Senior 
Rater's biography and, excerpts from regulations. 
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  is  currently  serving  on extended  active  duty  in  the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 
The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36-2401 which was 
returned without  action by  the  Evaluation Report  Appeals  Board 
(ERAB) on 10 June 1997. 

Applicant has seven promotion nonselections by the CY91B, CY92A, 
CY93A, CY94A, CY95B, CY96B  and  CY97B  Central  Colonel Selection 
Boards. 
Applicant's  Officer  Effectiveness  Report  (OER)  and  Officer 
Performance Report  (OPR) profile, since promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel, is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 

13 Jul 87  (OER) 
31 Mar 88 
31 Mar 89  (OPR) 
31 Mar 90 
31 Mar 91 
31 Mar 92 
31 Dec 92 
(No report avail 1 Jan 93 thru 28 Jul 94. 
4 Oct 94 
4 Oct 95 
4 Oct 96 
4 Oct 97 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Education/Training Report 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, states that 
based  on  the  improprieties at  the  55th Wing, Offutt  Air  Force 
Base  (AFB),  it  was  inappropriate  to  have  that  senior  rater 
involved  in  the  incident  also  involved  in  the  re-look.  By 
appointing the 24th Wing Commander, the Air Combat Command  (ACC) 
took an unbiased senior rater and tasked him to make a decision 
based  upon  the  applicant's  record  of  performance  (ROP) . 
As 
stated in Air Force Regulation 36-10  (AFR 36-10), the governing 
regulation at the time of the incident, the senior rater in this 
case,  General  S - - -   had  access  to  personal  knowledge  on  the 
applicant through the applicant's ROP which clearly fulfills the 
requirement and intent of the regulation.  He also had access to 
the ACC staff, which included experts from all weapons systems. 
There would  have  been  no  further  information available  to  any 
senior rater than that which was found in the applicant's ROP. 

General S---'s breadth of experience and other qualifications he 
developed  en  route  to  becoming  a  senior officer were  adequate 
tools to help  him  determine whether  or not  an officer has  the 
potential to serve in the next higher grade. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  General  S - - -   made  an  initial 
assessment of the applicant's record, which was confirmed by the 
Commander, Headquarters Air Combat Command  (the Management Level 
President) , who was another experienced Air Force Senior Rater. 
Based  on  General  S--- Is  evaluation  and  the  HQ  ACC/CC1s 

2 

concurrence,  the  applicant  received  fair  and  equitable 
consideration for possible  award of  a  "Definitely Promote"  for 
the CY91B Central Colonel Selection Board. 
Despite the applicant's interpretation of AFR 36-10 and Air Force 
Pamphlet 3 6 - 6   (AFP 36-61, there is no evidence that would warrant 
another re-look of the applicant's CY91 PRF.  They recommend the 
applicant's appeal be denied. 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition  Division,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPP,  states that  while  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  his 
interpretation of the governing directives, he has not proven any 
violation of Air Force policy occurred in regard to the review of 
his PRF.  AFPC/DPPP concurs with the advisory opinion written by 
AFPC/DPPPE and therefore is opposed to the applicant receiving an 
additional promotion assessment and subsequent SSB consideration 
by the CY91B board. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  4 May  1998  for  review  and  response.  Applicant 
responded and states, in summary, that he does not believe there 
were  any  ICBM  experts  on  the  ACC  staff  in  1996  when  the  PRF 
incident was reviewed.  Promotion officials go to great lengths 
to indicate promotion boards contain a cross-section of general 
officers  to  mirror  the  promotion-eligible  population. 
This 
allows an individual member not familiar with a particular ROP to 
ask the subject matter expert on the board. 
A copy of applicant's 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 probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  CY91B  PRF  should be 
voided, that  this Board  direct  a  new  PRF be  reaccomplished or 
that he  should receive consideration for promotion to the grade 

3 

of colonel by special selection board  (SSB) for the CY91B colonel 
selection board.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we do 
not  find  these  assertions, in  and  by  themselves, sufficiently 
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the Air Force. 
It appears that due to the inappropriate method utilized by the 
55th Wing, Offutt AFB  in preparing the  CY91  PRFs, a new Senior 
Rater was appointed to review the affected officers' records.  We 
are not convinced that this Senior Rater could not accurately or 
fairly assess the applicant's records.  Contrary to applicant's 
assertions that  this  individual did not  have  the background  in 
ICBMs to properly assess his record, we note that the new Senior 
Rater,  in  addition  to  having  access  to  applicant's Record  of 
Performance,  had  access  to  experts  from  all  weapon  systems. 
Therefore, we  find  insufficient evidence  that  any  other Senior 
Rater would  have  had  further  information regarding  applicant's 
performance.  As noted by the AFPC/DPPPE, the new Senior Rater, a 
general  officer,  had  the  breadth  of  experience  and  other 
qualifications he developed enroute to becoming a senior officer 
which were adequate tools to help him determine whether or not an 
officer has the potential to serve in the next higher grade.  In 
addition, we note that the Management Level President concurred 
in  the  Senior  Rater's assessment  of  applicant.  We  therefore 
agree with  the  recommendations of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  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  probable  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 15 December 1998, under  the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603. 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Officer Selection Record. 
Exhibit  C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Apr 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 20 Apr 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 May 98. 
Exhibit  F.  Applicant's Letter, dated 25 May 98, w/atchs. 

W T H A  MAUST/ 
Panel Chair 

5