RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01961

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Reconsideration for a Regular Air Force  (RegAF)  appointment  by  the
Calendar Year 1993B (CY93B)  (6 Jan  93)  RegAF  Board  and  promotion
reconsideration by the CY97C (16 Jun 97) major selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1997, the Military Personnel Center (MPC) Review Board  removed  an
Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 3 Nov  92  from   his  record
which was the top OPR when he was considered and not  selected  for  a
Regular commission in 1993.  Now, because Regular boards are no longer
held by the Air Force, he cannot  apply  for  a  supplemental  Regular
selection board.  However, a  Senior  Rater  Management  Level  Review
(MLR) Board that met in Mar 98, and included his  senior  rater,  used
Regular vs. Reserve commission  as  one  of  a  list  of  criteria  in
determining  awarding  of  “Definitely  Promote  (DP)”  vs.  “Promote”
promotion recommendations for his major board which placed him  in  an
unfair position when competing with others for a DP recommendation.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
19 Jul 82.  He is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of captain, effective, and with a date of rank  (DOR)  of  8 Aug
90.





Applicant’s OPR profile since 1991 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             15 Apr 91               Meets Standards
             30 Nov 91               Meets Standards
             15 Apr 92               Meets Standards
              3 Nov 92               Meets Standards
             31 May 93               Meets Standards
             31 May 94               Meets Standards
             31 Dec 94               Meets Standards
             31 Dec 95               Meets Standards
             31 Dec 96               Meets Standards
              2 Jul 97               Meets Standards

The Air Force indicated that in Jul 94, the applicant appealed,  under
the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2402,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted
Evaluation Reports, to void the 3 Nov 92.   Instead,  the  Evaluations
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) corrected the OPR by removing a derogatory
statement from the rater’s comments and reconsideration by  the  CY93B
RegAF board was granted.  In Sep 97, the applicant once again appealed
the 3 Nov 92 OPR and contested that the correction made to the  report
had been sloppily done and that the removed statement from the rater’s
comments could still be seen through the correction  tape.   The  ERAB
once again corrected the contested report and granted  reconsideration
by the CY97C board (the RegAF board was not reaccomplished  since  the
applicant’s record was correct).

The applicant has two promotion nonselections by the CY97C  and  CY98B
major boards.  As a result, he has a mandatory date of  separation  of
31 Dec 98.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Officer  Promotion  &  Appointment  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPOC,
reviewed this application and would like to clarify two statements the
applicant makes.  In one statement, he  says  that,  “because  Regular
boards are no longer held  by  the  Air  Force,  I  cannot  apply  for
supplemental Regular selection board.”  Although  the  Air  Force  has
discontinued convening stand-alone RegAF Appointment Boards in Mar 97,
officers who had previously been considered by one may  still  request
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration.  In fact,  the  applicant
did receive supplemental RegAF consideration based  on  his  corrected
OPR.  Secondly, he states, “the MPC Review Board removed an  OPR  from
my record that I had successfully appealed.”  The applicant  did  have
the original corrected version of the OPR, which closed out 3 Nov  92,
removed from his Officer Selection  Record  (OSR).   However,  it  was
replaced with a copy of the corrected version of the OPR  in  Oct  97.
The correction deleted the last few lines in  Section  VI  of  subject
OPR.  He was considered and nonselected for a RegAF Appointment by the
CY93B RegAF Appointment  Board.   Subsequently,  he  had  a  statement
removed from the contested OPR and was granted SSB  consideration  for
his CY93B RegAF Appointment Board.   A  copy  (not  original)  of  the
applicant’s OSR  selection  folder,  viewed  by  the  28 Nov  94  SSB,
contained the corrected version of the OPR.  He was nonselected by the
board.  DPPPOC recommends denial of applicant’s request.

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

The Chief, Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that in regard to  applicant’s  claims  that
his MLR used “Regular” vs. “Reserve”  commission  as  a  condition  to
award a “DP” recommendation, presently the  MLR  has  access  to  this
information on an officer’s Duty Qualification History  Brief.   Under
AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System (Jul 96), this  information  is
considered reliable information and is thus permissible under  Officer
Evaluation System (OES) guidelines at both the senior  rater  and  MLR
level.  This issue is without merit and, therefore, there is no  basis
to grant promotion reconsideration by the CY98B  board.   He  is  once
again requesting reconsideration by the CY93B RegAF and CY97C  boards.
At this time, there is no basis to grant his  request  as  relief  has
already been granted.  DPPPA recommends  denial  of  the  request  for
reconsideration for RegAF appointment and promotion.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were  forwarded  to  applicant  on
24 Aug 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  he  should  be  given  the  requested  relief.    His
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air  Force.   His
contentions have been adequately addressed by the Air Force and we are
in complete agreement with their recommendation.  Therefore, based  on
the evidence of  record,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we 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.  In view of the above, 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  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Mr. Frederick A. Beaman, III, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 98.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 31 Jul 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 8 Aug 98.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair