RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02197
                       INDEX CODE: 131.01

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period  16 November  1994
through 15 November 1995 be replaced with a reaccomplished OPR.

2.    His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  Calendar  Year  1996C
(CY96C) Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

3.    The Board  examine  the  procedures  documented  by  Air  Force’s  own
officials.

4.    His nonselections be set aside.

5.    His record be corrected to reflect selection to lieutenant colonel  as
if selected in the promotion zone by the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Board.

6.    His CY96C Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB)  be  corrected  to  reflect
Commander, 2nd Combat Group during Operation Desert Storm; Deputy  Director,
J6, Joint Task Force-Bravo, during Operation Just Cause; and  294  days  TDY
overseas reflected as adjustment to Overseas  Duty  Date  (ODSD)  and  Short
Tour Return Date (STRD).

7.    His corrected record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY96C
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been attempting to update his duty history summary and  his  overseas
duty history well before the  CY96C  board.   There  were  a  total  of  two
changes to his overseas duty history and six changes  to  his  duty  history
summary, and each had to be processed
serially according to his military personnel flight (MPF).  The  final  duty
history change alone took from September 1996 until July 1997  to  complete.
This final change went back and forth between Pope AFB and Randolph AFB  six
or seven times due to the fact that the base being added no  longer  existed
in the AFPC data base.  The key errors which  he  believes  justify  an  SSB
include: (1) Commander, 2nd Combat Comm Group during Operation Desert  Storm
was not in the duty history; (2) Deputy Director, Joint Task Force-B  during
Operation Just Cause misrepresented in the duty history as  Deputy  Director
of 2151st Comm Squadron; and (3) Accumulated overseas TDYs of 294  days  was
not reflected in overseas duty history.   These  corrections  could  not  be
finalized in time for his promotion board as he was on-station only 12  duty
days from the time he received his preselection brief on 22 April  1996  and
the time the board met on 8 July 1996.

In support of the appeal,  applicant  submits  a  statement  from  the  Vice
Commander stating applicant spent considerable time, both before  and  after
his promotion board, attempting to correct  his  duty  history  summary  and
overseas credit.  These updates took  over  a  year  to  accomplish  due  to
applicant’s excessive temporary duty (TDY) rate and the  cumbersome  process
used to update duty history information.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant  was  considered  and  nonselected  by  the  CY93A  and  CY94A
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, as a below the zone candidate.  He  has
two promotion nonselections  by  the  CY96C  and  CY97C  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Boards.  The applicant retired in the grade of major effective  31
August 1998.

Applicant appealed his OPR for the period of 16  November  1994  through  15
November 1995 and Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for  the  CY96C  Board
under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401.   The  appeal  was  denied  by  the
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).

OPR profile since 1990, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       12 Dec 90             Meets Standards
                       12 Dec 91             Meets Standards
                       12 Dec 92             Meets Standards
                   #   15 Nov 93             Meets Standards
                   ##  15 Nov 94             Meets Standards
                 * ### 15 Nov 95             Meets Standards
                       15 Nov 96             Meets Standards
                   ####      30 Jun 97             Meets Standards

* Contested Report
# Top report at time of CY93A board.
## Top report at time of CY94A board.
### Top report at time of CY96C board.
#### Top report at time of CY97C board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Reports and Queries Team, AFPC/DPAIS1  reviewed  the  application
and states that in the  member’s  application  for  SSB  consideration,  his
reference to changes made in his duty history are  too  vague  for  them  to
address.  A thorough review of the applicant’s  complete  duty  history  was
made based on source  documents  submitted  and  those  extracted  from  the
applicant’s selection folder.  The following discrepancies were  noted:  (a)
DAFSC “4945A” effective 861101 does not agree  with  source  documents;  (b)
DAFSC “4916” and duty title “Combat Cmd-Control  Systems”  effective  910315
does not agree with source document; (c) The duty entry effective 920319  as
reads “Commander” does not agree with source documents on  file.   Based  on
the vagueness of the corrections made by member’s MPF, and the  errors  they
detected, they cannot concur with their actions  at  this  time.   Recommend
member’s MPF re-evaluate this update IAW AFMAN 36-2622 Vol  1,  6.20.3.3.8.2
to determine proper procedures for processing.  Specifically, they note  the
statement “If the OER/OPR does not  agree  with  the  requested  changes,  a
request must be submitted to correct the OER/OPR.”

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

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application  and
states that the officer preselection brief (OPB) is sent  to  each  eligible
officer several months prior to a selection board.  The  OPB  contains  data
that will appear on the OSB at  the  central  board.   Written  instructions
attached to the OPB and given to the officer before  the  central  selection
board specifically instruct  him/he  to  carefully  examine  the  brief  for
completeness and accuracy.  If  any  errors  are  found,  he/she  must  take
corrective  action  prior  to  the  selection  board,  not  after  it.   The
instructions specifically state, “Officers  will  not  be  considered  by  a
Special Selection Board if, in exercising
reasonable diligence, the  officer  should  have  discovered  the  error  or
omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective  action.”
 They wonder, then, where the applicant’s responsibility lies in this.   Why
did he not attempt to make  these  corrections  prior  to  his  BPZ  boards?
Further, the 1989 duty history entry he is now contesting was in his  record
when he was considered (and selected) for promotion to major  by  the  CY91A
major board.  Therefore they recommend denial based on the lack of  evidence
provided, the applicant’s lack of diligence,  and  the  assessment  from  HQ
AFPC/DPAIS1.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states  that  AFPC  has
not provided even a scintilla of proof to  support  its  position  that  the
errors in his record did not precipitate  his  nonselection.   He  asks  the
Board to review the evidence and judge the evidence  on  its  merits  as  he
believes he has certainly  proved  “probable”  error  and  injustice  -  the
threshold required for this Board to grant relief.  He also states  that  in
regard to:

Inaccurate, Incomplete Duty History.  These errors have been corrected.   He
asks the Board to direct reconsideration of his corrected record by an  SSB.
 In fact, the evidence proves these (and other) errors had a  direct  impact
not only upon the central selection board which  considered  his  file,  but
also in his senior rater’s review of his PRF for the CY96C  board.   He  has
added these issues to his complaint as the ERAB has denied  his  request  to
correct his PRF which was in large part based upon an incomplete picture  of
his performance based potential by his senior  rater  -  an  omission  which
was, in part, based on the lack of knowledge of  the  duties  which  he  had
performed.

Inaccurate, Unjust OPR Closing 15 November 1995.  The evidence in  his  case
proves beyond any doubt that an  error  and  injustice  occurred  when  this
report was written.  Not only have his evaluators explained how and why  the
error occurred, each now supports amendment of this report  to  correct  the
flawed OPR.

Inaccurate, Unjust PRF.  In view of the  evidence  provided  by  his  senior
rater - the official “solely responsible” for his PRF, he asks the Board  to
direct amendment of his file to include replacement of his current PRF  with
the reviewed PRF provided.

Grounds for Relief: Requirements of  10  USC  Para  615  and  DoD  Directive
Ignored.  The Board must conclude the failure of the  Air  Force  to  comply
with 10 USC Para 615 and DoDD  1320.12/DoDI  1320.14  “penetrate[s]  to  the
heart of  the  process  Congress  deemed  necessary  for  fair  judgment  in
selecting  officers  for  promotion  [which]  is  presumed  prejudicial   in
accordance with the policy of the statute.”  This error is indeed  “serious,
substantial,  and  directly  related  to  the  purpose  and  functioning  of
selection boards.” (Doyle, supra.)  He, therefore, asks  the  Board  to  set
aside all promotion nonselections he  has  received  as  a  result  of  this
tainted, illegal process.

Grounds for Relief: Violation of 10  USC  Para  616  -  Recommendations  for
Promotion  by  Selection  Boards.   The  Air  Force  selection  board  which
considered his file did not allow board members either the knowledge of  the
officers recommended to make this decision nor did they allow a majority  of
the members of the board to form the  required  consensus.   Therefore,  the
results of this board are without effect, and he  asks  the  AFBCMR  to  set
aside his nonselections at the illegally held selection board.

Grounds for Relief: Violation of 10  USC  Para  617,  Reports  of  Selection
Boards.  The Air Force selection boards which considered his  file  did  not
allow board members either the knowledge  of  the  officers  recommended  to
make this decision nor did they allow a  majority  of  the  members  of  the
board to form the required consensus.  Therefore, the results of the  boards
are without effect, and he asks the AFBCMR to set  aside  his  nonselections
at the illegally held selection boards.

The AFBCMR should correct his record  to  reflect  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel.  The basis for  this  request  was  two  fold:  (1)  The  Board  is
required to provide full and fitting relief and direct promotion  is  within
the authority of the Board, and (2) A SSB cannot provide a full  measure  of
relief.  The  evidence  proves  direct  promotion  is  within  the  AFBCMR’s
authority and that SSBs cannot provide a full, let alone fitting measure  of
relief.  Therefore, he asks the AFBCMR to direct his record be corrected  to
reflect selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel as if selected by  the
CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Board.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Mgt,  AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed   the
application and states that a rater and  additional  rater  merely  have  to
consider comments on Professional Military Education (PME); however, AFR 36-
10 in no way requires these
statements to be included in an OPR.  At the present time, the new  OPR  has
not been approved for placement into the applicant’s record  of  performance
(ROP) and, therefore, should not be considered when  preparing  a  new  PRF.
In addition,  the  applicant  is  requesting  an  upgraded  PRF  based  upon
erroneous overseas duty information.  Reference HQ AFPC/DPPPA’s advisory  of
5 September 1997, the applicant’s original request  was  denied  based  upon
the fact that the applicant had more than  ample  opportunity  to  have  the
information corrected prior  to  the  CY96  Central  Selection  Board.   The
applicant met two  Central  Selection  Boards  prior  to  the  CY96  Central
Selection Board and, therefore,  had  access  to  his  pre-selection  brief.
Similarly, the applicant’s original  PRF  clearly  makes  reference  to  the
applicant’s overseas duty history in lines two,  three,  and  four,  so  the
information was obviously available to the senior rater at the time the  PRF
was prepared.  A PRF is considered  to  be  an  accurate  assessment  of  an
officer’s  performance  when   rendered.    Failure   to   include   a   PME
recommendation on an OPR is not a valid reason to re-write a  PRF.   Despite
the  fact  that  the  applicant  has  received  concurrence  by  his  senior
rater/MLR  president,  replacing  valid  statements  on  a  PRF  with  valid
statements is not appropriate in this case and would provide  the  applicant
an opportunity for subsequent promotion that  is  not  afforded  to  others.
Recommend denial of the applicant’s request.

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

The Chief of Ops, Selection  Board  Secretariat,  Directorate  of  Personnel
Program Mgt, AFPC/DPPB,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the
applicant contends his promotion board was in violation of various  sections
of Title 10, United States Code.   They  do  not  agree.   Air  Force  legal
representatives have reviewed their procedures on several  occasions  during
the past  few  years  and  have  determined  those  procedures  comply  with
applicable statutes and  policy.   Applicant  contends  the  Air  Force  has
neither developed nor issued standard  operating  procedures  for  selection
boards.  They do not agree.  Upon approval and publishing of  DoDD  1320.12,
4 February 1992, all Air Force promotion boards were placed on hold  pending
a complete rewrite of AFR 36-89, Promotion of  Active  Duty  List  Officers.
Only after the new AFR 36-89 was approved by the Office of the Secretary  of
Defense and published 17 April 1992,  did  they  resume  promotions  boards.
Applicant’s statement on use of the  quality  review  worksheet  is  totally
unfounded.  This sheet is not a form.  It is computer  generated  data  used
to assist the board president during the quality review process.   Applicant
contends that the below-the-promotion zone (BPZ)  offset  was  completed  at
the panel level rather than at the board level and the offset  was  actually
a tail
light check of a  group  of  BPZ  and  In/Above-the-Promotion  Zone  (I/APZ)
candidates.  They do not agree.  After the  BPZ  order  of  merit  (OOM)  is
finalized, the record of the lowest possible BPZ select (assuming  the  full
BPZ quota would be used) was reviewed by every board member that scored  the
line competitive category.  The BPZ record was compared to  the  number  one
I/APZ nonselect to determine if the quality of the  BPZ  record  was  better
than that of the number one I/ZPZ nonselect.  Applicant contends  the  board
president’s role violates restrictions of Department of  Defense  Directives
(DoDD).  They do not agree.   The  actions/responsibilities  of  each  board
president are in compliance with statute and  policy.   The  Air  Force  has
used the panel concept for many years in conducting selection  boards.   The
panel concept has safeguards to ensure an equal distribution of the  quality
spectrum of records to each panel.  When more than one panel scores a  given
competitive category, all  the  eligible  records  are  aligned  in  reverse
social security number  sequence  and  then  distributed  in  blocks  of  20
records to each panel, i.e., records 1 through 20 to panel one,  21  through
40 to panel two, 41 through 60 to panel three, etc.  As  each  panel  scores
its share of records, a OOM is formed.  One of  the  major  responsibilities
of the  board  president  is  to  review  the  orders  of  merit  to  ensure
consistency of scoring on each panel and consistency of  quality  among  the
panels.  To do this the board president will do a  quality  review  on  each
OOM in and around where the selection rate falls.   Without  exception,  the
quality of records has always been identical at the  same  percentage  level
on each OOM.  Applicant states that the board members do not see a  complete
select list before their departure.  This is true  in  part.   Again,  under
the panel concept, panel one does not need  to  know  what  panels  two  and
three have done.  Each panel’s task is to align the records assigned  to  it
in an OOM.  When the quota runs out  at  a  score  category  that  has  more
records in it than the quota allows to be promoted (commonly  known  as  the
gray zone), each panel’s gray  zone  records  will  be  aggregated  together
(commonly known as aggregate gray) and will be scored by the  entire  board.
When a board resolves the  aggregate  gray  zone  ties,  all  board  members
become aware of the lowest selects and the highest  nonselects  on  the  OOM
and, required by law, must determine if the selects are fully qualified  for
promotion.  The board  understands  all  records  scoring  higher  than  the
lowest select on its OOM are also selects.  Applicant seems  to  imply  that
the post-board action of preparing an  alpha  select  list  of  the  board’s
recommendations constitutes some illegal action and voids the entire  board.
 The alpha select list,  which  must  be  attached  to  the  official  board
report, is merely recapitulation of the selects  from  the  board  in  alpha
sequence vice numerical  sequence.   The  list  is  audited  to  ensure  100
percent accuracy before it becomes part  of  the  board  report.   Applicant
contends that some board members depart prior  to  the  adjournment  of  the
board.  Again, applicant implies some
illegal action occurred and, therefore, the board  was  illegal.   In  fact,
health professions competitive category boards were held  concurrently  with
the Line competitive category board.   When  the  health  professions  board
members had completed  all  board  responsibilities,  they  were  dismissed.
After all board responsibilities were completed by the Line  board  members,
they were dismissed.  These procedures are in keeping with Section  621,  10
U.S.C.  Applicant again seems to imply that another  post-board  function  -
preparing  the  final  board  report  for  presentation  to  the   approving
authority - was the reason he was nonselected for promotion.  DoD  Directive
1320.12  directed  separate  promotion  boards   be   conducted   for   each
competitive category and also authorized conducting  those  separate  boards
concurrently.  The directive also authorized consolidating  the  results  of
the boards  into  a  singled  package  for  presentation  to  the  approving
authority.   This  has  been  done  for  many  years  without  challenge  or
objection by Air Force legal  representatives.   Applicant  contends  a  SSB
cannot provide a full measure of relief since  the  benchmark  records  used
for a  SSB  are  a  tainted  record  sampling.   They  do  not  agree.   The
identification  of  benchmark  records  from  each  selection  board  is  in
compliance with governing directives.  Applicant alleges the scoring  system
used to determine selection by SSB is arbitrary  and  capricious.   They  do
not agree.  Applicant attempts to discredit the scoring scale  used  by  the
Air Force for many years on its selection boards.   That  scoring  scale  is
from 6 to 10 in half point increments.  Board members are briefed to try  to
apply a 7.5 score to an average record and try to  use  the  entire  scoring
range throughout the evaluation process.  Recognizing that  the  scoring  of
records is a  subjective  process,  it  should  come  as  no  surprise  that
individuals may have a slightly different definition of what constitutes  an
average record.  Additionally, history  has  revealed  that  a  given  board
member may be a more liberal scorer than other  board  members  and  have  a
higher distribution of scores, i.e., from 7 to 10.  On  the  other  hand,  a
given  board  member  may  be  a  more  conservative  scorer  and   have   a
distribution of scores from 6 to 9.  In  either  of  these  examples  a  7.5
score would not likely be the average record.  As long as each board  member
applies  their  individual  standard  consistently  throughout  the  scoring
process, each consideree will get a fair  and  equitable  evaluation.   Only
when two or more board members score the same record with a variance of  two
or more points, i.e., 7 and 9 or 7 and 9.5, does a significant  disagreement
occur and through discussion the variance is resolved, i.e., less  than  two
points variance.  It should be noted the numerical scores from the  original
board have nothing to do with the numerical scores given  to  the  benchmark
records by a SSB, only the  select/nonselect  status  of  the  benchmark  is
important.  Because the benchmark records are very similar  in  quality,  it
is not unusual to have some inversion in the benchmark OOM  created  by  the
SSB.  Whenever the inversion is of a
nature that a nonselect benchmark record receives the highest score  by  the
SSB and the consideree’s record receives the same score or even  the  second
highest  score,  i.e.,  beats  all  the  select  benchmarks,  the  nonselect
benchmark record and the consideree’s  record  are  returned  to  the  board
members for rescoring.  If the consideree’s record scores  higher  than  the
nonselect benchmark, the consideree will be a  select.   Regardless  of  the
situation, SSB members are not informed which record is a  benchmark  record
or a consideree record.

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

The  Chief,  Reports  and  Queries   Team,   Directorate   of   Assignments,
AFPC/DPAIS1, reviewed this application and states the  applicant  was  vague
in  detailing  the  specifics  of   each   assignment   history   correction
accomplished by his MPF.  Therefore, they conducted  a  thorough  review  of
the member’s assignment history and noted three discrepancies:  (a)  861101:
member’s assignment history reflects a DFASC of “4945A;”  however,  the  OPR
covering 16 June 1986 through 15 July 1987 has the  DAFSC  of  “4944A”;  (b)
910315: Member’s assignment reflects a DAFSC and duty title as “4916  COMBAT
CMD-CONTROL SYSTEMS;” however, the OPR covering 13 December 1990 through  12
December 1991 has the DAFSC and duty title as “4911 CHIEF, COMMAND  COMPUTER
OPERATIONS BRANCH”; and  (c)  920319:  Applicant  vaguely  touched  on  this
entry in his letter to the board.  Member’s assignment  history  reflects  a
DAFSC and  duty  title  as  “4945  Commander;”  however,  the  OPR  covering
13 December 1991 through 12 December 1992 has the DAFSC and  duty  title  as
“4916 TACTICAL EXERCISE/TRAINING C3 SYSTEMS OFF.”  Neither  duty  entry  was
in member’s CY96C OSB.  The “4945 Commander” entry showed up  in  the  CY97C
OSB.  They do not concur with the “4945 Commander” duty entry since it  does
not coincide with the OPR on file.  In addition, they  are  of  the  opinion
that this entry was erroneously updated.  They refer to AFMAN  36-2622,  Vol
1, para 5.20.3.3.8.2 which states “...if the OER or OPR data does not  agree
with the requested correction, a request must be submitted  to  correct  the
OER or OPR.”  The member states in his rebuttal that he  obviously  met  the
standard of proof required to obtain these corrections  or  his  file  would
never have been updated.  Unfortunately, this is not true. They empower  the
MPFs to make assignment history corrections, they publish policy,  and  they
rely on them to follow it, but errors show this  is  not  always  the  case.
The applicant mentioned one other item in his letter to the board about  his
890907 duty title.  The  applicant  contends  the  entry  as  reads  “DEPUTY
DIRECTOR” on the CY96C OSB should have read “DEPUTY DIRECTOR, J6 JTF  BRAVO”
as seen on the CY97 OSB.  Due  to  lack  of  source  documents  they  cannot
concur with this entry.  They defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPAB.

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

The  NCOIC,   CONUS   Assignment   Policy,   Directorate   of   Assignments,
AFPC/DPAIP1, reviewed this application and states  upon  reviewing  member’s
request concerning errors in his overseas tour history,  it  was  noted  the
updates he is requesting are for TDYs and not Overseas Tours.  His TDYs  are
reflected in the TDY Accumulator.  The TDY Accumulator is not  an  item  for
review on the OSB.

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

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Mgt,
AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states  direct  promotion  of  the
applicant  would  circumvent  the  competitive  nature  of  the  Air   Force
promotion process.  They believe a  duly  constituted  board,  comprised  of
senior  officers,  is  the  most  appropriate  method  of  determining   the
applicant’s potential to serve in  the  next  higher  grade.   There  is  no
foundation for the direct promotion request.  The applicant  has  failed  to
prove he did not receive full and fair consideration by the CY96C  selection
board.  They recommend denial of applicant’s requests.

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

The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application  and  states
the author begins with a general indictment of the Air Force for failing  to
follow the law and  for  offering  Air  Staff  advisories  that  ignore  the
mandates of the law.  In particular, he cites Doyle v. U.S.,  599  F.2d  984
(1979), for the proposition that procedural violations  which  penetrate  to
the heart of the process Congress deemed  necessary  for  fair  judgment  in
selecting officers for promotion  are  presumed  prejudicial,  and  he  then
claims that that case forces the conclusions he espouses in the  brief.   He
also chastises the Air Force for failing to  address  Doyle.   They  address
Doyle now – but only long enough to note that the  crucial  prerequisite  to
application  of  the  principle  quoted  from  Doyle  above  is   that   the
applicant/plaintiff must first prove an error.  It  is  only  then  that  an
analysis of impact and prejudice even becomes  relevant.   In  this  regard,
the author seemingly fails to understand that  the  burden  of  proof  rests
with the applicant, and that, once again, the government’s burden  to  prove
“harmless error” comes into play only if an error  has  first  been  proven.
In their opinion,  the  author  has  failed  in  his  burden  to  prove  the
existence of any error requiring the need for a  potential  remedy.   It  is
their opinion that this application should be denied; applicant  has  failed
to present relevant evidence of any error injustice warranting relief.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 22 June 1998, 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting  replacing  the  Officer
Performance Report  (OPR)  for  the  period  16  November  1994  through  15
November  1995  with  a  reaccomplished  OPR.  The  Board   considered   the
statements provided  by  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  at  the  time  the
contested OPR was written.  It appears that the rater and  additional  rater
were not aware of the negative impact of omitting the Professional  Military
Education (PME) statement recommendation from the  applicant’s  OPR  closing
15 November 1995 and has submitted a reaccomplished report.   Therefore,  we
recommend that the  OPR  closing  15 November  1995  be  replaced  with  the
reaccomplished OPR provided.  In regard to the requested corrections on  the
CY96C Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB),  HQ  AFPC/DPAIS1  states  that  they
conducted a thorough review of the applicant’s assignment history and  noted
three discrepancies.  Therefore, we  recommend  the  assignment  history  be
corrected  as  indicated  below.   In  regard  to  the  remainder   of   the
applicant’s requested OSB changes, we note that  the  requested  duty  title
changes,  effective  890907  and  920319,  do  not  agree  with  the  source
documents on file and, therefore, we do not recommend that  these  requested
changes be made.  AFPC/DPAIP1 also states that the requested changes to  the
Overseas Duty Date and Short Tour Return Date are for TDYs and not  Overseas
Tours and is not an item for  review  on  the  OSB.   In  regard  the  CY96C
Promotion Recommendation Form, the Board notes that the  reaccomplished  PRF
submitted by the applicant is rewritten entirely in  Section  IV,  Promotion
Recommendation  block.   We  do  not  believe  this  is   appropriate   and,
therefore, recommend his request to replace the contested CY96C PRF  with  a
reaccomplished PRF be denied.  However, based on our recommended  change  to
the OPR closing 15 November 1995, we are of the opinion that the  CY96C  PRF
should also include a PME recommendation.  Therefore, we recommend that  the
CY96C  PRF,  Section  IV.  Promotion  Recommendation,  last   sentence,   be
corrected to read “Definitely Promote-send to SSS.”  In addition, the  Board
recommends the applicant’s corrected record, be considered for promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Boards  for  the  CY93A
and any subsequent boards in which the corrections  were  not  a  matter  of
record.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  setting  aside  the
applicant’s nonselections, and direct promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant
colonel through the correction of records process.   We  believe  that  duly
constituted selection boards, applying the complete promotion criteria,  are
in the most advantageous position to render this  vital  determination,  and
that its prerogative to do so should only  be  usurped  under  extraordinary
circumstances.  In this regard, the Board  observes  that  officers  compete
for promotion under the  whole  person  concept  whereby  many  factors  are
carefully assessed by selection boards.  An officer  may  be  qualified  for
promotion but, in  the  judgment  of  a  selection  board  vested  with  the
discretionary authority  to  make  the  selections,  may  not  be  the  best
qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion  vacancies.
 Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that he would have  been  a
selectee had his folder reflected the recommended change, we believe that  a
duly constituted selection board applying the  complete  promotion  criteria
is in the most advantageous position to  render  this  vital  determination,
and  that  its  prerogative  to  do  so  should  only   be   usurped   under
extraordinary circumstances.  Therefore, it is our  opinion  that  the  most
appropriate and fitting relief is to place the corrected record before  SSBs
as indicated above. Based on the foregoing, we conclude  that  there  is  no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on the  applicant’s  requests
to set aside his nonselections for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel and for direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

5.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice regarding the applicant’s  numerous
assertions concerning the statutory compliance of central selection  boards,
the legality of the promotion recommendation process, and  the  legality  of
the Special Selection Board (SSB) process.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record,  we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   of
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale  provided  by
the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the  opinions  and  recommendations
of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or  an  injustice
concerning these issues.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form  707A,
rendered for the period 16 November 1994 through 15 November  1995  declared
void and removed from his records.

      b.    The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 16 November 1994 through 15 November 1995, reflecting in Section  VI.
Rater Overall Assessment, last sentence “-Competent  technician,  dedicated,
officer, and superior leader—select for SSS and for  squadron  command!”  be
place in his record in its proper sequence.

      c.     The  Officer  Selection  Brief  for  the  Calendar  Year  1996C
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board,  assignment  history,  be  corrected  as
follows:

            -    Duty Air Force Specialty Code  (DAFSC),  effective  861101,
be corrected to read “4944A.”

            -    DAFSC and duty title, effective  910315,  be  corrected  to
read: “4911 CHIEF, COMMAND COMPUTER OPERATIONS BRANCH.”

            -    DAFSC and duty  title,  effective  920319,  “4916  TACTICAL
EXERCISE/TRAINING C3 SYSTEMS OFF.” be added.

      d.    The Promotion  Recommendation  Form,  AF  Form  709,  for  cycle
0596C, Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, last sentence,  be  amended  to
read “Definitely Promote-send to SSB.”

It  is  further  recommended  that  the  applicant’s  corrected  record   be
considered for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  Special
Selection Board for the  CY93A  and  any  subsequent  boards  in  which  the
corrections were not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 14 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
            Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
            Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 July 1997, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 22 August 1997.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 September 1997,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 20 December 1997,
               w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 10 February 1998.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 31 March 1998.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 3 April 1998.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 14 April 1998.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 April 1998.
   Exhibit K.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 June 1998.
   Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 September 1997 and
               22 June 1998.






                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair