RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02039 (Case 3)
            INDEX CODE:  111.05, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  USAF JUDICIARY ADC

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period  6 March
1995 through 5 March 1996, be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records and he be considered for promotion to  the  Reserve  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  FY99
Reserve of the Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 8
June 1998.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater  had  insufficient  supervision  to  render  an  appropriate
performance appraisal.  Performance feedback was not accomplished  and
the contested report shows undue emphasis on isolated incidents.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-2401 appeal package  and  the  Evaluation  Report
Appeal Board (ERAB) decision (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 29 September 1977, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force.  He is currently  a  member  of  the  active
Reserve  serving  in  an  Individual  Mobilization   Augmentee   (IMA)
position, with  the  duty  title  of  communication  computer  systems
officer.  He has been progressively promoted to the Reserve  grade  of
major, with an effective date  of  rank  of  29 September  1991.   The
following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to  his  promotion
to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              18 Jun 92      Meets Standards (MS)
               5 Mar 95      Not rated
            *  5 Mar 96      Does Not Meet Standards
               5 Mar 97          MS
               5 Mar 98          MS

*  Contested Referral OPR

# Top report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the FY99 (A0599) Reserve of the Air
Force Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 8 June 1998.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 22 May 1998.

In January  1994,  applicant  applied  to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) for reinstatement into the Air
Force Individual Mobilization Augmentee  (IMA);  purge  all  files  of
allegations; a favorable Officer Performance Report (OPR) be filed  in
his official folder for the  period  19  June  1992  to  the  present;
financial reimbursement for active duty  and  inactive  duty  training
lost and points for  retirement.   On  15 September  1994,  the  Board
partially approved his application,  recommending  that  any  and  all
derogatory references regarding travel voucher fraud be declared  void
and removed from his master personnel records.

Information maintained in the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals that
the applicant is currently credited  with  26  years  of  satisfactory
service and has an established mandatory retirement date of 31 January
2001.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, stated  that
there is no evidence the rater had insufficient supervision to  render
the performance report.  Lack of performance feedback by itself is not
an adequate reason to invalidate  a  performance  report.   While  the
contested report reflects  someone  other  than  the  rater  conducted
feedback, it does not prove the rater did not conduct feedback, verbal
or written.  There is no evidence which clearly confirms the contested
report  is  not  an  accurate  assessment  of  the  applicant’s   duty
performance  during  the  reporting  period.    DP   recommended   the
applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that  he
never met his rater and the contested report was not  written  by  the
rater.  He has seen no documentation  of  misconduct  to  support  the
contested report and it was inappropriate to make a recommendation for
separation on an OPR.  A complete copy of this response is appended 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.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we are not persuaded that the OPR of record is  erroneous  or
that the rating chain on the OPR is improper.   In  this  respect,  we
found no evidence that the contested report was prepared  contrary  to
the governing regulation nor  did  we  find  the  rater’s  failure  to
conduct counseling or feedback sessions to be a  sufficient  basis  to
invalidate the report.  As to the applicant’s assertion that there  is
no documentation of misconduct, we note the contested report indicated
the applicant’s unacceptable behavior  resulted  in  a  reprimand  and
dismissal from training.  Hence,  some  documentation  apparently  did
exist at one time.  In view of the foregoing, and in  the  absence  of
evidence which shows to our satisfaction that the contested report  is
technically  flawed,  the  information  contained  in  the  report  is
erroneous or inaccurate, or the ratings and comments had  their  bases
in factors other than the applicant’s  performance  and  behavior,  we
find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the
applicant’s request.

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  issue(s)   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 13 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DP, dated 24 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 19 Oct 98.




                                   MARTHA MAUST
                                   Panel Chair