RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01343
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  records,  to  include  a  corrected   copy   of   his   Promotion
Recommendation Form  (PRF),  receive  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)
consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the
Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When his 1996 PRF was printed for final signature, the  last  sentence
in Section III, Job Description, “Key Duties, Tasks, Responsibilities”
was cut off leaving an incomplete sentence which  did  not  accurately
reflect his job description.  Applicant believes this error prejudiced
the lieutenant colonel promotion board considering him in the  primary
zone.  Both his senior rater at that time and,  the  Management  Level
Review Board (MLRB) President supported his appeal and  corrected  the
PRF.  Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center (HQ AFPC) agreed the PRF
should be corrected but failed to grant an SSB.  This decision is very
inconsistent since allowing the PRF to be corrected after the original
board met does not solve the injustice the incorrect PRF caused at the
original promotion board.

In support of his appeal applicant submits a statement from  the  MLRB
President and the Senior Rater of the contested PRF.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
major.

A similar application was submitted to the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) and they determined that the PRF in  question  should  be
corrected.  The ERAB did not approve promotion reconsideration by  the
CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

Applicant was considered, but not selected, by the CY96C  (8  Jul  96)
and CY97C (21  Jul  97)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Line  Central  Selection
Boards.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile, since  promotion
to the grade of major, is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             7 Jul 93            Meets Standards
             7 Jul 94            Meets Standards
             7 Jul 95            Meets Standards
         #  17 May 96            Meets Standards
         ## 25 Jun 97            Meets Standards
            25 Jun 98            Meets Standards

#   Top report at time of nonselection for promotion to the grade
    of major by the CY96C Central Board
##  Top report at time of nonselection for promotion to the grade
    of major by the CY97C Central Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA,  states  that
in reviewing the applicant’s 17 May 1996  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) (the top OPR on file when his record was reviewed by  the  CY96C
board), it was  noted  that  the  same  (complete)  sentence  is  also
included in Section III, Item 2, of the OPR.  AFPC/DPPA believes it is
highly unlikely the applicant’s nonselection  for  promotion  was  the
result of the four missing words in the PRF—particularly when one  can
see the full, complete sentence on the 17 May 1996 OPR.  They  do  not
believe  the  board  based  the  sole  reason  for   the   applicant’s
nonselection on four missing words from the PRF.

Even though the applicant has the concurrence  of  his  evaluators  to
have the PRF corrected, neither officer specifically  state  that  the
missing words would have made a difference.  Instead,  they  state  it
“could” have made a difference.

Air Force Regulation (AFR) states that the senior rater is responsible
for providing the ratee a copy of the PRF approximately 30 days before
the central selection board is scheduled to  convene.   The  applicant
had ample time to obtain correction to the PRF prior  to  the  central
board.  The applicant could have communicated with the board president
to inform him of the discrepancy on the PRF.

There is no clear evidence the erroneous PRF negatively  impacted  the
applicant’s promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire
officer selection record (OSR), assessing whole  person  factors.   HQ
AFPC/DPPPA is not convinced the contested PRF was  the  cause  of  the
applicant’s nonselection,  nor  does  it  believe  the  applicant  was
diligent in seeking correction to the PRF prior to  the  board.   They
recommend the application be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
22 June 1998 for review and response.  Applicant states,  in  summary,
that the missing words on the PRF, whether intentional or not, reflect
a lack of serious concern to insure  an  accurate  record  before  the
board.  Applicant states that he did receive a copy of the  PRF  prior
to the board, however, he did  not  scrutinize  the  PRF  for  errors.
Draft copies were correct and there was no reason to assume there were
any errors when he received the final signed copy.  Correcting the PRF
without the supplemental board does nothing since it is  not  part  of
his permanent record that would be used in  future  promotion  boards.
Applicant’s 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 a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be considered for promotion to the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for  the  Calendar
Year 1996C (CY96C) board with  a  corrected  Promotion  Recommendation
Form  (PRF)  in  his  officer  selection  folder.    The   applicant’s
contentions and his evaluator’s supporting statements are duly  noted;
however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force.  The  Air  Force  acknowledges  that  there  was  an  error  on
applicant’s PRF which was reviewed by the CY96C  selection  board  and
corrected the error; however, it is highly unlikely this omission  was
the sole cause for his nonselection.  In this respect, they note  that
central boards evaluate the entire officer record.   After  thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we note that the missing words  were
reflected on the  top  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  which  was
reviewed by the selection board; therefore, we are in  agreement  with
the Air Force and are compelled to conclude that the omission of these
four  words  constitutes  a  harmless  error  and  does  not   warrant
consideration by an SSB.   Further,  we  must  presume,  for  lack  of
evidence to the contrary, that the applicant received a  copy  of  his
PRF in sufficient time to review it and make corrections prior to  the
convening of the CY96C board.  In view of the foregoing,  we  find  no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 7 January 1999, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 98 w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Folder.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 8 Jun 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jun 98.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 2 Jul 98




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair