RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02490

                 COUNSEL:  JEWISH WAR VETERANS

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), reviewed by the  Calendar
Year 1991 Medical/Dental Corps (CY91 MC/DC) Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with  a  reaccomplished
PRF.

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel
by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY91 MC/DC Central Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PRF for the CY91 promotion board was not an accurate reflection of
his accomplishments.  Specifically, the PRF  was  written  by  someone
other than his direct supervisor.  Applicant also states that  no  one
requested input from him while preparing the PRF.

In support of his requests, the applicant submits numerous attachments
to include a reaccomplished 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.

Applicant  has  eight  promotion  non-selections  to  the   grade   of
lieutenant colonel by the CY90, CY91, CY92, CY93, CY94, CY95, CY96 and
CY97 Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

Applicant’s OER/OPR profile is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

            15 Jun 87                 1-1-1
            15 Jun 88                 1-1-X
            15 Nov 88            Meets Standards
            13 May 89            Meets Standards
         #  13 May 90            Meets Standards
            30 Nov 90            Meets Standards
        ##  30 Nov 91            Meets Standards
       ###  30 Nov 92            Meets Standards
      ####  20 Jun 93            Meets Standards
     #####   1 Mar 94            Meets Standards
    ######   1 Mar 95            Meets Standards
             1 Mar 96            Meets Standards
   #######  10 Jul 96            Meets Standards
  ########  10 Jul 97            Meets Standards
            10 Jul 98            Meets Standards

#         Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY90A Medical/Dental Board.
##        Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY91A Board.
###       Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY92A Board.
####      Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY93A Board.
#####     Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY94 Board.
######    Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY95 Board.
#######   Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by CY96 Board.
########  Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of
          lieutenant colonel by the CY97 Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, states that  the
applicant received a “Promote” promotion recommendation on  his  CY91A
PRF and was nonselected for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel.   He  was
one year above the promotion  zone  when  he  met  the  CY91A  Central
Selection Board.

AFPC/DPPPE concurs with AFPC/DPPPA’s  assessment  of  this  case.   In
their 20 November 1996 [attached]  response  to  the  applicant,  they
advised the PRF is the responsibility of the senior rater.  The senior
rater ensures the PRF is an accurate reflection of the individual when
it is rendered.  The fact that the applicant’s rating chain was  in  a
period of  high  turnover  does  not  represent  a  flaw  in  the  PRF
preparation process.  The fact that no one ever requested  input  from
the applicant when preparing his PRF does not represent  an  error  in
the process.  Regulation does not  require  senior  raters  to  gather
input from the individual when preparing the recommendation.

In this case, the senior rater and the Management Level  Review  (MLR)
President have stated that the  original  PRF  should  be  voided  and
replaced with a more accurate one.

They state the applicant had two options available to him at the  time
the PRF was rendered.  First, he had the  option  of  approaching  the
senior rater and requesting a change to the PRF.  Secondly,  he  could
have written a letter to the Central Selection Board  (CSB)  to  state
what he felt were discrepancies.

The material presented by the applicant does not justify replacing his
PRF.  However, because both the senior rater and  MLEB  President  now
determine a new PRF should be prepared, this evaluation recommendation
is deferred to the AFBCMR.

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

The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPP,  states  that
Senior Raters  are  charged  with  reviewing  the  ratee’s  record  of
performance, Duty Qualification History  Brief,  Personal  Information
File and  Unfavorable  Information  File  before  preparing  the  PRF.
Furthermore, he may consider other  reliable  information  about  duty
performance and conduct.  A senior rater must also be knowledgeable of
the  ratee’s  most  recent  performance,  and  may  allow  subordinate
supervisors to provide information on an officer’s  most  recent  duty
performance and performance-based potential, and may make  suggestions
based upon the officer’s duty performance for PRF recommendations.

It is not uncommon for someone other than the senior rater to draft  a
PRF.  However, the final product is owned and approved by  the  senior
rater when he or she signs it.  AFPC/DPPP does not believe  the  short
time the senior rater was assigned to  Air Base had any bearing on the
senior  rater’s  assessment  of  the  applicant’s  overall   promotion
potential

Applicant should have received a copy of the CY91 PRF at least 30 days
prior to his promotion consideration  and  could  have  requested  his
senior rater rewrite the PRF.  He could have also elected to  write  a
letter to the CY91 board president.  However, there is no evidence the
applicant wrote any such  letter.   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.  More importantly, they have
not explained why the  information  contained  in  the  reaccomplished
version of the PRF was not available when it was  initially  rendered.
The selection board had  his  entire  officer  selection  record  that
clearly outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on  active
duty.  They recommend the application be denied.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the  applicant
and counsel for review and response.  Applicant submitted  a  response
and states, in summary, that his appeal  to  void  the  CY91  PRF  and
replace it with the new revised PRF is  not  an  attempt  to  recreate
history.  What he desires to accomplish is a true  accurate  portrayal
of his job performance, job knowledge, leadership capabilities and his
promotion potential.

Applicant submits a letter from the former Medical Group Commander  at
Air Base,  indicating that his exposure to the applicant’s performance
was limited to the period of approximately one month  before  his  PRF
was prepared.   The  former  commander  states  that  he  believes  he
reviewed the draft PRF and forwarded it, with suggested  comments,  to
the  wing  executive  officer  for   the   Senior   Rater’s   ultimate
concurrence, approval and signature.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to  warrant  voiding  and
replacing the PRF prepared for  the  CY91A  Medical/Dental  Lieutenant
Colonel board and  providing  promotion  consideration  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB).  The applicant contends that the contested  PRF
was not an accurate assessment of his accomplishments during the  time
period in question; that the PRF was prepared by  someone  other  than
his direct supervisor; and no one requested his  input  prior  to  the
preparation of the contested PRF.  In support of this  contention,  he
has provided a statement from the senior rater with  a  reaccomplished
PRF   reflecting   an   enhanced   job   description   and   promotion
recommendation, and a statement from  the  MLEB  president.   Although
both the senior rater and MLEB president state that the contested  PRF
should be voided and replaced with one which more accurately  reflects
applicant’s  promotion  potential,  neither   of   these   individuals
unequivocally state that the contested report is in  error.   Further,
the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the information in the
reaccomplished report was not available when  the  PRF  was  prepared.
Lastly, applicant has not  provided  any  documentation  that  he  was
unaware of the contents of the  PRF  before  it  became  a  matter  of
record.  Clearly,  he  could  have  provided  the  senior  rater  with
additional information and requested the report be  reaccomplished  at
that time.  Therefore, the majority  of  the  Board  agrees  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopts the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an  injustice.   In
view of the foregoing, the Board majority finds  no  compelling  basis
upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The majority of the panel finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603.

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Wheeler voted to grant applicant’s requests but he does not desire
to submit a minority report.  The following documentary  evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Folder.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Sep 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Nov 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 17 Dec 98, w/atch.





                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair








MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                         FOR  CORRECTION  OF  MILITARY
RECORDS
                                        (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of
                     Docket Number 98-02490

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of  this  case
and do not agree with the majority decision  of  the  panel  that  the
applicant’s requests should be denied.

      In arriving at my decision, I note that the Senior Rater and the
Management Level Evaluation Board President (MLEB) unequivocally state
that the contested Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was not written
by the applicant’s supervisor.   The  Senior  Rater  stated  that  the
senior leadership positions at  Air Base, , were in transition and  he
was unaware that the applicant’s supervisor had not  written  the  PRF
prior to his departure from  Air Base.

      The applicant’s former supervisor stated  that  he  received  no
request for a PRF prior to his departure in July 1991 and was  unaware
that the PRF was prepared by the  Noncommissioned  Officer  In  Charge
(NCOIC) Dental Services.  The supervisor also stated that due  to  the
nature of Short/Remote tours,  the  PRF  submission  process  was  not
timely, and in this  case,  not  accurate.   He  also  felt  that  the
narrative on the PRF did not cover the applicant’s  total  career  and
key accomplishments adequately.

      I also note the statement submitted by the MLEB  President  that
he is convinced the applicant’s PRF should be voided  and  substituted
with one that  more  accurately  reflects  the  applicant’s  promotion
potential.  Therefore, having no basis to question  the  integrity  of
these officials, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in  favor
of the applicant.  Accordingly, it is my decision  that  the  original
PRF prepared for the Calendar Year  1991  Medical  Corps/Dental  Corps
(CY91 MC/DC) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection  Board  be  declared
void; that the reaccomplished PRF be substituted for the  voided  PRF;
and that he be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY91 MC/DC board.








   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR 98-02490




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to     , be corrected to show that the Promotion
Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, reviewed by the Calendar Year 1991
Medical Corps/Dental Corps (CY91) MC/DC Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void, removed from his
records, and replaced with the reaccomplished PRF provided.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the
CY91 MC/DC Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and, if selected
for promotion, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
be advised of that selection at the earliest practicable date so that
all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed.







   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaccomplished PRF