RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01930
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.02
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Effectiveness  Report  (OER)  closing  13  March  1983  be
removed from his records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater mismarked three blocks under the Performance Factors Section
(Management   of   Resources,   Oral   Communications,   and   Written
Communications) on the front side  of  the  contested  report  due  to
confusion/lack of understanding of the rating system and standards  in
use at the time.  The inaccurately marked blocks reflect negatively on
his performance during that period.  At this  juncture,  removing  the
negative information by pulling the OER would be the most accurate and
expeditious way to “square up” his records.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the  contested
report and supporting statements from the evaluators.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) as
14 April 1981.  He has  served  on  continuous  active  duty  and  was
integrated into the Regular component on  26  February  1985.   He  is
currently serving in the grade  of  major  with  a  date  of  rank  of
1 September 1993.

Applicant’s OER/OPR profile follows:

     PERIOD CLOSING    OVERALL EVALUATION

       28 Apr 82 Education/Training Report (TR)
    *  13 Mar 83 1-1-1 (w/LOEs)
       11 Jul 83 1-1-1
       28 Feb 84 1-1-1
       28 Feb 85 1-1-1
       21 Oct 85 1-1-1
       20 Dec 85 TR
       19 Apr 86 1-1-1
        6 Jan 87 TR
       18 Aug 87 TR
       31 Jul 88 1-1-1
       31 Jul 89 Meets Standards (MS)
        4 Dec 89 MS
       29 Dec 90 MS
        2 Dec 91 MS
        2 Jun 92 MS
        2 Jun 93 MS
        2 Jun 94 MS
        2 Jun 95 MS
        2 Jun 96 MS
  #     2 Jun 97 MS
  **   18 Feb 98 TR
       28 Jun 98 MS

* Contested report.  A similar appeal was filed under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2401.  The portion of the appeal dealing with the  contested
OER was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  on  24
June 1998.

# Top report in file when considered and nonselected for promotion  by
the CY97C Lt Colonel Board which convened on 21 July 1997.

** Top report in file when considered and nonselected for promotion by
the CY98B Lt Colonel Board which convened on 1 June 1998.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
recommended denial.  Their comments, in part, follow.

DPPPA noted that the letters of support from the rating chain  on  the
contested OER are dated some 15 years after the report became a matter
of record.  DPPPA believes the statements from the  rating  chain  are
clear examples of retrospection.  The rater did not  indicate  he  now
has information not previously available  when  the  report  became  a
matter of record some 15 years  ago.   DPPPA  found  no  evidence  the
report is unjust and is strongly opposed to its being voided or to the
applicant receiving Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  on
this issue.

None of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were
hindered  from  rendering  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  the
applicant’s performance prior to the report being  made  a  matter  of
record.  The appeals process does not exist  to  recreate  history  or
enhance chances for promotion.  It is obvious the report did not  have
an adverse effect on applicant’s promotion opportunity, because he was
considered and selected for promotion to the grades  of  both  captain
and  major  with  the  report  in  his  records.   DPPPA  asserts  the
applicant’s OER was accomplished in direct accordance with  Air  Force
policy in effect at the time the report was rendered.  (Exhibit C)

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant stated  that  the  application  should  not  be  time-barred
because the case of Detweiler v. Pena applies as he is retiring in  29
months, and given the circumstances, the errors were not  discoverable
at the time they occurred.  This information  just  recently  surfaced
through casual conversation with the rater.

He stated that the statement from his rater is not simply a letter  of
support, but evidence for appeal - it states the  situation,  why  the
OER was marked incorrectly, and his (the rater’s)  recommendation  for
its resolution.  Furthermore, the rater  should  not  be  required  to
supply  any  new  evidence  -  the  evidence  is  his   admission   of
misunderstanding of the rating scale in use at the time - that lack of
understanding caused him to mark  the  blocks  erroneously.   Now,  as
then, the additional rater and indorser show their trust in the  rater
by conferring their support.  AFI 36-2401 states that reports  can  be
removed if the report is unjust or incorrect - this OER is  incorrect.
Only evidence showing the report is incorrect is required.

Applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error  or  injustice.   We  have  noted  the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case,
including  the  supporting  statements  from  the  evaluators  on  the
contested report.  While supportive of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  the
statements from the evaluators do  not,  in  our  opinion,  support  a
finding that the contested report is in error or unjust  as  rendered,
only that the ratings could have been marked differently.  Nor  did  a
review of the evidence provided persuade us that the  evaluators  were
precluded from  rendering  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  the
applicant’s duty performance at the  time  the  report  was  rendered.
Based on the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive  evidence  to
the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in 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 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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 28 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Aug 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Sep 98, w/atchs.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair