RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03386

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) that  was  prepared  for
the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) (8 Jul 96) Lieutenant Colonel Board be
replaced with a new PRF.

2.    His corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY96
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The CY96C PRF did not include Command and Senior Service School  (SSS)
recommendations and that his acquisition certifications and experience
levels were not listed anywhere in  his  records.   There  were  three
important statements left out  of  his  PRF.   His  acquisition  corps
experience was erroneously left out of his records and the PRF was the
only place it could have been mentioned.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a   four-page
statement, copies  of  the  original  (CY96C)  PRF  and  revised  PRF,
statements from the senior rater and the Management Level Review Board
(MLRB) president, his acquisition report prepared by  SAF/AQXD,  three
Certified  Acquisition  Professional  certificates,  and  the  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY96C Board.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
2 Jul 80.  He is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 92.

Applicant’s  Officer  Effectiveness   Reports   (OERs)   and   Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) since 1988 reflect the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              4 Feb 88                     1-1-1
              1 Dec 88               Meets Standards
             16 Apr 89               Meets Standards
             16 Apr 90               Meets Standards
             17 Sep 90               Meets Standards
             17 Sep 91               Meets Standards
             17 Sep 92               Meets Standards
             17 Sep 93               Meets Standards
             31 Mar 94               Meets Standards
              6 Aug 94               Meets Standards
           * 30 Sep 95               Meets Standards
             30 Sep 96               Meets Standards
          ** 23 Jun 97               Meets Standards
             30 Mar 98               Meets Standards

     *   Top report on file at time of CY96C board.
     **  Top report on file at time of CY97C board.

A similar application was  submitted  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the  applicant’s  documentation  and
denied the appeal.

The applicant was considered and not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY96C  and  CY97C  (21 Jul  97)
Lieutenant Colonel Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Air Force Officer Evaluation Board Recorder, AFPC/DPPPEB, reviewed
this application and indicated that per AFR 36-10 (Aug 88),  paragraph
4-9 (a-1), a senior rater is responsible for the information which  is
placed in a PRF.  The applicant  quotes  the  ACC  EPR/OPR/PRF  Guide,
dated 5 Dec 95, as a reference point for why the statements should  be
included in his PRF.  First, this guide is merely that, a  guide,  and
as such, it is not a regulatory requirement.  Second, neither AFR  36-
10 (Aug 88) nor AFI 36-2402 (Jul 96), Officer Evaluation System, state
these are required or prohibited statements on a PRF.

With regard to the statements from  the  senior  rater  and  the  MLRB
president, these are merely statements of personal preference  on  the
part of both the officer and the  senior  rater  and  are  in  no  way
required to be on a PRF.

In reference to the applicant’s assertions regarding  the  acquisition
information,  he  should   have   received   a   pre-selection   brief
approximately 100 days prior to the board.  As stated in the  request,
the applicant followed up and had the system  corrected;  however,  it
was clearly within his right to write to the Central  Selection  Board
president to ensure the information was available and updated.

As for the Command recommendations and SSS  recommendation,  a  senior
rater is solely responsible for the information  placed  into  a  PRF.
There are presently no statements on the applicant’s PRF which make it
an invalid document.  Replacing statements on a PRF after the fact  is
not a valid reason for the  PRF  to  be  replaced  and  the  applicant
afforded the opportunity to  meet  an  SSB.   Retrospective  views  of
wording/impact are not valid  reasons  to  revise  an  evaluation  and
provide additional promotion consideration which is  not  afforded  to
other officers.  A PRF is considered to be an accurate  assessment  of
an officer’s performance when rendered.  The applicant’s original  PRF
was examined and  found  to  contain  nothing  but  valid  statements;
therefore, DPPPEB recommends denial of the applicant’s  request.   The
original PRF should stand since the wording in Section  IV,  Promotion
Recommendation, supports the Overall Recommendation in Section IX.

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

The Chief, Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that, in  regard  to  the  SSS  and  Command
Recommendations, the applicant included a  letter,  dated  28 Aug  97,
from the senior rater who indicates he did not realize the  importance
of inclusion of such comments to the PRF  and  states  that  he  added
recommendations for both SSS and command to the applicant’s 31 Oct 95,
30 Oct 96, and 30 Jun 97 OPRs.  DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was  the
top document on file for the CY96C board  and,  as  the  senior  rater
states, includes a recommendation for professional military  education
(PME).  As a matter  of  interest,  DPPPA  notes  the  senior  rater’s
letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he  “did  not
feel  it  necessary  to  reiterate  to  the  promotion   board   (his)
endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.”   The  senior  rater
believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...”  was  his  best  and
strongest input to the promotion board but  he  states  he  has  since
learned the importance of these recommendations to the PRF and is  now
willing, in retrospect, to change the wording on the  PRF  to  include
these statements.

Regarding Acquisition  Corps  Information,  DPPPA  notes  the  officer
preselection brief  (OPB)  provided  by  the  applicant  indicates  he
completed three Level III certifications in Mar, May and Sep 94.  They
also note there is no entry under the heading, Date  Assigned  Current
Acquisition Position.  What is not clear to them is why,  since  1994,
information regarding the applicant’s experience  in  the  acquisition
corps has never been included in any of his  OPRs.   The  OPR  is  the
appropriate forum to include this type of information—not just the PRF
as the applicant and senior rater allude.  As stated  by  AFPC/DPPPAE,
“The data included in the revised PRF  was  available  to  the  senior
rater prior to preparation of the original form.”   The  senior  rater
made a conscious decision not  to  include  this  information  in  the
applicant’s PRF and now that the applicant has  been  nonselected  for
promotion, he  believes  it  should  be  included  in  the  PRF.   The
reaccomplishment of the PRF is  purely  retrospection  on  the  senior
rater’s part and a clear attempt to embellish the PRF.

In the senior rater’s letter, he states that  the  applicant  was  his
“number  one  candidate  for  a  DP  at  the  major  command  (MAJCOM)
management level review board (MLRB).”  The original PRF contains  the
statement, “If I had one more DP, it would be (the applicant)....”  In
DPPPA’s research, they retrieved copies of the PRFs on those  eligible
officers with whom the applicant competed for a DP.   Out  of  the  31
eligibles, 7 had  DPs—6  of  which  were  in/above-the-promotion  zone
(I/APZ).  Seven of the 31  had  PME  recommendations,  4  had  command
recommendations, and 2 contained recommendations for both command  and
PME.  Out of the 7 DP PRFs, 2 of them contained no recommendation  for
PME or command.  It certainly appears the senior rater was well  aware
of what information could and could not be included on a  PRF.   DPPPA
verified the applicant wrote a letter to the  CY96C  board  president;
however, since this letter has either been destroyed  or  returned  to
the applicant, DPPPA has no way of knowing whether or not he mentioned
his acquisition corps information in the letter.

DPPPA further states that, evaluation reports are considered  accurate
as written unless substantial evidence to the  contrary  is  provided.
As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of
record and any report can be rewritten to be  more  hard  hitting,  to
provide embellishments, or enhance the  ratee’s  promotion  potential.
The time to do that is before the report becomes a matter  of  record.
Neither the applicant’s senior rater nor the  MLRB  president  explain
how they were hindered from rendering a fair and  accurate  assessment
of the applicant’s performance prior to the PRF being made a matter of
record.  As a matter of fact, the MLRB president’s letter  of  support
is vague, at best.  He does not explain what information  he  has  now
that he did not have when the original PRF was prepared, nor  does  he
go into any detail as to what convinced him to support the applicant’s
appeal.  The appeals process does not exist  to  recreate  history  or
enhance chances for promotion and it appears this is exactly what  the
applicant is attempting to do—recreate history.  As such, DPPPA is not
convinced the PRF report is not accurate as written and  they  do  not
support the request for removal and replacement.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided  a  six-
page response which 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,  a  majority  of
the Board is not persuaded that  the  PRF  for  the  CY96C  Lieutenant
Colonel Board should be replaced with a new PRF and he be granted  SSB
consideration.   The  Board  majority  has  thoroughly  reviewed   the
documentation submitted with this  appeal,  including  the  statements
from the senior rater of the contested report and the MLRB  president;
however,  these  statements  are  not   sufficiently   persuasive   to
demonstrate that an error existed on the PRF.  In  this  respect,  the
majority notes that the senior rater had access to  and  knowledge  of
the applicant’s record at the time it was written and  wrote  the  PRF
recommendation based on those facts and  it  was  his  (senior  rater)
responsibility as to what was written into Section IV of the PRF.   In
addition, a majority of the Board believes that it was the applicant’s
responsibility to show he made an attempt to update his  record  prior
to the CY96C board.  The majority also notes that the PRF is  not  the
only document and source of information used by  a  Central  Selection
Board and find insufficient evidence in the record that  the  PRF  was
the  sole  reason  for  the  applicant’s  nonselection  to  lieutenant
colonel.  In view of the above, and  in  the  absence  of  substantial
evidence to the contrary, a majority of  the  Board  agrees  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, a majority of  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have  materially  added
to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 29 September 1998, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Wheeler voted to grant the relief sought  but  does  not  wish  to
submit a minority report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 20 Nov 97.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 7 Jan 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jan 98.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 5 Feb 98, w/atchs.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair


MEMORANDUM   FOR   THE   EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR,   AIR    FORCE    BOARD
                        FOR    CORRECTION    OF    MILITARY    RECORDS
                          (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of Docket Number 97-03386

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.



                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency