RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02055
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  be
declared null and void, beginning with the  CY94A  Lieutenant  Colonel
Board, which convened on 11 Oct 94.

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for  consideration  by  the
CY94A (P0494A) Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 11 Oct  94,
be amended in the "Assignment History" section  to  reflect  his  duty
title as “Chief, Electronic Combat Systems," with an effective date of
16 Dec 92, rather than “Electronic Combat Systems Test Manager.”

The  Promotion  Recommendation  (PRF),  AF  Form  709,  prepared   for
consideration by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on
11 Oct 94, be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote.”

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel  as  though
selected by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened  on  11
Oct 94, with all pay, benefits, and any other entitlements  associated
with that promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record was in error when he was initially considered by the  CY94A
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

The central board, itself, was held in direct violation of statute and
directive.

There is no  provision  for  major  command  (MAJCOM)  indorsement  or
“special” promote  recommendations.   Because  the  “special”  promote
recommendations effectively took away  promotions  from  officers  who
receive legitimate promote  recommendations,  there  was  no  way  his
record could have competed on a fair and equitable basis.

An SSB cannot provide him the full  and  fitting  relief  mandated  by
statute.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a  detailed  personal
statement, a statement from  his  commander,  copies  of  his  Officer
Performance Reports and a PRF, and other documents associated with the
matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently on active duty in the grade of  major,
having been promoted to that grade on 1  Oct  90.   His  Total  Active
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) 3 Aug 79.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1992 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      15 Dec 92  Meets Standards
      15 Dec 92  Meets Standards
  #  31 Jul 94   Meets Standards
 ##  31 Jul 95   Meets Standards
###  31 Jul 96   Meets Standards

  #  Top Report - CY94A (11 Oct 94) Lt Col Board.
 ## Top Report - CY96C (8 Jul 96) Lt Col Board.
### Top Report - CY97C (21 Jul 97) Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Report and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAIS1, indicated that  a  review
of the applicant’s duty history revealed that the upgrade  to  “Chief,
Electronic Combat Systems” was entered into the PDS with an  effective
date of 1 Aug 94.  However, according to the source document  on  file
(OPR closing 15 Dec 93, the upgrade should have been effective 16  Dec
92.  They have updated the PDS to reflect  “Chief,  Electronic  Combat
Systems” effective 16 Dec 92.

A complete copy of the DPAIS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this  application
and indicated that they disagreed  with  the  applicant’s  contentions
that Air Force Selection Boards violated statute and  DOD  Directives,
and that an SSB cannot provide him a full measure of relief.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit D.


The Evaluations Board Section, AFMPC/DPPPEB, addressed  the  technical
aspects of the  application  pertaining  to  the  PRF.   According  to
DPPPEB, a PRF is  considered  to  be  an  accurate  assessment  of  an
officer’s ability when it is  rendered.   The  PRF  is  not  the  only
document considered by a Central Selection Board.  The PRF, along with
many other factors, such as an officer’s Record of Performance and OSB
are considered in determining which officers are  most  qualified  for
promotion.  In DPPPEB’s view, there was no  evidence  to  support  the
applicant’s claim that his PRF should be  upgraded  to  a  “Definitely
Promote.”  There was also no evidence that Air Force  regulations  and
guidelines were not adhered to.

A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
indicated that based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and
indicated that the application should be denied.  In  JA’s  view,  the
applicant had failed to present relevant  evidence  of  any  error  or
injustice warranting relief.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a detailed  response  to  the  Air  Force  advisory
opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for  the  Board’s
consideration (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.

      a.  With regard to the applicant’s request that the OSB prepared
for consideration by the CY94A board be amended to reflect his correct
duty title, we  note  that  the  applicant’s  duty  history  has  been
corrected administratively.  However,  we  agree  with  the  rationale
expressed  by  AFPC/DPPPA  concerning  SSB  consideration   with   the
corrected duty history.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  sufficient
evidence to support a determination that the applicant’s record before
the original selection board was so inaccurate or misleading that  the
board  was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision  concerning  his
promotability in relationship to his peers, we adopt  their  rationale
and conclude that no basis exists to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought in this application.

      b.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly  reviewed
and his contentions regarding the contested PRF, his consideration for
promotion by the  selection  board  in  question,  and  the  promotion
process in general, were duly noted.  However,  we  do  not  find  the
applicant’s assertions, in and of themselves, sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility (OPRs) concerning  these  issues.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, the  applicant’s  requests  that  his  nonselections  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be voided, the CY94A  PRF
be upgraded to a “DP,” and he be directly promoted  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel as though selected  by  the  CY94A  board,  is  not
favorably considered.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 11 March 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
      Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAISI, dated 12 Sep 97.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 25 Sep 97.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 1 Oct 97.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 10 Oct 97.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 Oct 97.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Nov 97.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 10 Dec 97, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair