RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01669

      XXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXX HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93) promotion file  be  compared  against  the
three Medical Service Corps (MSCs) officers selected for  promotion  to  the
Reserve grade of colonel  by  the  FY93  United  States  Air  Force  Reserve
(USAFR) Colonel Board.

2.    He be promoted to the Reserve grade of colonel as if selected  by  the
FY93 USAFR Colonel Promotion Board.

3.    He be awarded an appropriate effective date and all back pay or he  be
provided a pin-on date within the FY93 promotion cycle.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 4 May 1988  to  22  July
1989, a period of 446 days and his OPR for the period  23 July  1989  to  30
January 1991, which was reflected as 180 days as opposed to 556  days,  both
exceeded the annual OPR requirement.  The excessive terms of  the  OPRs  led
to a reduced number of OPRs that the  Board  could  review  and  undoubtedly
raised questions in the minds of the Board members as to  their  correctness
or propriety.   His  reporting  official  during  his  tenure  as  commander
believed it was considered positive to leave the last line of  block  VI  of
the OPR empty to add emphasis and  focus  the  eye  of  the  reader  on  the
strength of the appraisal.  After the unsuccessful results of the Board,  he
learned of the negative impact blank space has in  the  eyes  of  the  board
members and he relayed  this  information  to  his  reporting  official  for
future consideration.  His role and responsibilities  as  a  Unit  Commander
for  over  three  years,  exceptional  service   during   Operation   Desert
Shield/Storm, Health Services  Inspection  success  and  numerous  visionary
efforts to ensure medical reservists called up for future contingencies  are
the best trained and prepared, far exceed the performance of any  other  MSC
officers who met the FY93 board.   He  has  been  told  by  past  0-6  board
members that they are instructed that all categories  of  reserve  officers;
A, B,  etc.,  are  to  be  considered  equal  when  making  their  decision.
However, there can be no comparison to the time commitment and demands  made
on a Category A Unit Commander when  making  the  best  qualified  promotion
decision.  He believes the FY93  Colonel  Selection  Board  made  a  serious
error when he was  not  selected  for  promotion  and  this  error  must  be
rectified before he is forced to retire in January 1999, at  the  completion
of his 28 years of commissioned service in the United States Air Force.   As
a Category A Reservist, he was called upon to dedicate his entire  being  to
the leadership of his unit and he did so without question  because  he  knew
command is only afforded those who are the best.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of his OPRs.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active  duty  in  the  USAFR,
MSC, in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by the FY93, FY94, FY95, FY96, FY97,  and  FY98  USAFR  MSC  Colonel
Selection Boards.

OER/OPR profile since 1988, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       03 May 88                   1-0-1
                 *     22 Jul 89             Meets Standards
                 *     30 Jan 91             Meets Standards
                 * #   30 Jan 92             Meets Standards
                       30 Jan 93             Meets Standards
                       02 Oct 93             Meets Standards
                       03 Jul 94             Meets Standards
                       30 Mar 95             Meets Standards
                       30 Mar 96             Meets Standards
                       30 Mar 97             Meets Standards
                       30 Mar 98             Meets Standards

* Reports in question
# Top report at time of FY93 board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ  ARPC/DP,  reviewed  the
application and states that the member is correct concerning the OPR  close-
out date 22 July 1989.  The report  should  have  closed  out  3  May  1989,
reflecting 365 days of supervision, and annual, as the  reason  for  report.
The OPR closing 30 January 1991 reflects number days of supervision  as  180
days; the number of  days  supervision  is  based  on  the  number  days  of
supervision under the rater during the reporting period, and  the  rater  is
responsible for the accuracy of the number of days  supervision.   From  the
information  provided,  the  OPR  closing  30  January   1991,   meets   the
requirements of AFI 36-2402.  In Section VI, the rater’s overall  assessment
is limited to nine lines.  The AFI does not require the  rater  to  use  all
nine lines.  To resolve his concerns about  his  OPRs,  the  applicant  must
apply under AFI  36-2401  Correction  of  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation
Reports.  This process  uses  an  AF  Form  948  and  requires  accompanying
justification.  If he applies now, he will need to request a waiver  to  the
3-year time limit and explain why he had not  applied  within  the  required
time frame.  Applicant has not provided any information  that  substantiates
an injustice  by  the  FY93  board.   In  addition,  he  has  not  exhausted
established  procedures  to  identify  and  correct  errors  in  his   OPRs.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluation  and  states  that  it  was
evident no review of the FY93 0-6 board results took  place  and  the  party
line of, “the Board uses the whole person concept to  make  selections”  was
the basis and mainstay for the denial.  The use of the whole person  concept
and a comparison  of  his  record  with  those  MSC  officers  selected  for
promotion can only result in the  correction  he  has  requested.   The  Air
Force evaluation talks of selection criteria; job performance,  professional
qualities, leadership, participation, depth and breadth of  experience,  job
responsibility, academic and military education, and  specific  achievements
as the basis of his non-selection.  A review of his  file  could  only  show
this to be erroneous.  The Air Force evaluation  minimizes  the  errors  and
failings of the inappropriate number of OPRs and the impact  such  omissions
can have on board members expecting to see a minimum of three  and  possibly
four reports in a file.  An annual report that is not rendered for 446  days
and the second and final report in his promotion file as an 05 reflected  as
180 days when it exceeded 500 days can suggest irresponsibility on his  part
when it was inadequate personnel management practices within his CBPO.   How
can OPRs with these glaring errors meet the requirements  of  AFI  36-2402?.
He is not filing under AFI 36-2401 to resolve OPR  concerns,  he  is  saying
these errors had a negative impact on his consideration  for  promotion  and
no filing of an AF Form 948 can correct the perception  of  a  board  member
who is scrutinizing files at a rate of one a minute.  First impressions  are
lasting impressions and the AFBCMR is the only body that  can  correct  this
non-selection error.  Please open the FY93 MSC promotion files  and  compare
his record.  There were no other MSC commanders and command is the  ultimate
in job responsibility which was pointed out in the HQ ARPC/DP memorandum.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________


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  reviewing  the  evidence
submitted with this appeal, we are of the opinion  that  the  applicant  has
not  provided  any  convincing  evidence  in  support  of  his  request  for
promotion to the Reserve grade of colonel,  with  an  appropriate  promotion
effective date and back pay.  It appears the applicant  is  requesting  this
Board to  compare  his  record  against  the  three  officers  selected  for
promotion to the Reserve grade of colonel by the FY93 USAFR  Colonel  Board.
We do not believe we should substitute our own judgment for that of  a  duly
constituted board.  We are of the opinion  that  the  members  of  the  duly
constituted selection board, applying the complete promotion criteria,  were
able to render a fair  determination  concerning  his  promotion  potential.
The Board also notes  that  the  applicant  has  not  exhausted  established
procedures to  identify  and  correct  errors  in  his  Officer  Performance
Reports.  However, if the applicant  chooses  to  submit  a  request  for  a
correction of his record  and  meet  a  special  selection  board,  we  will
reconsider his application.  In view of the forgoing and in the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 10 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jun 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DP, dated 4 Aug 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 98.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 4 Sept 98





                             Panel Chair