RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02642
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive consideration for promotion to the grade of  colonel  by  a
Special Selection Board (SSB), to include a  reaccomplished  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), for the  CY96B  Central  Colonel  Selection
Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After a review of his Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period
2 July 1989 through 29 October 1989,  he  discovered  an  error  in  a
statement cited in the CY96B PRF.  The OPR in question states that “we
achieved over 92% on-time takeoff rates for the last quarter.”   While
the PRF for the CY96B promotion board reflects a “95% on-time  takeoff
rate.”  Although this mistake makes the PRF stronger,  it  could  very
well have been viewed by the selection board as misstating the  facts,
lying, or attempting to cheat.

In support of  his  application,  applicant  submits  a  copy  of  the
contested PRF (PO696B) and a copy of the OPR closing 29 October  1989.


Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant did not file an appeal  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Report.

Applicant was considered, but  not  selected,  by  the  CY96B  Central
Colonel Selection Board which convened on 2 December 1996.  He was  in
the promotion zone (IPZ) when he met the CY96B promotion board.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

            29 Oct 89 (Major)    Meets Standards
            29 Oct 90            Meets Standards
            13 Sep 91            Meets Standards
            13 Sep 92 (Lt Col)   Meets Standards
            21 Jul 93            Meets Standards
            21 Jul 94            Meets Standards
             8 Jun 95            Meets Standards
        * #  8 Jun 96            Meets Standards
             8 Jun 97            Meets Standards

* Contested report

#  Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of colonel
   by the CY96B Central Colonel Selection Board

Applicant applied for voluntary retirement on 1 December 1997.  He was
subsequently released from active duty on 31 December 1997 and retired
effective 1 January 1998 in  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel.   He
served 22 years, 5 months, and 15 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, states that  the
applicant   received   a   “Definitely   Promote”    (DP)    promotion
recommendation on his CY96 PRF and was nonselected  for  promotion  to
the grade of colonel.  AFPC/DPPPE concurs with the reaccomplishment of
the applicant’s CY96 PRF; however, it is  his  responsibility  to  get
support for this action from both his senior rater and the  Management
Level  president.   If  replacement  is  supported,  it  is  also  the
applicant’s responsibility to obtain his senior rater’s  signature  on
the new form.

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

The Acting Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, &  Recognition  Division,  HQ
AFPC/DPPPAB, states that while the applicant contends the statement in
question may have misled the promotion board to nonselect him, they do
not agree.  Central  boards  evaluate  the  entire  officer  selection
record (OSR) assessing whole person factors such as  job  performance,
professional qualities, etc.  The selection board reviewed his  entire
OSR that outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active
duty.  Each officer receives a copy of their PRF 30 days  prior  to  a
central board convening.  The applicant did not  provide  anything  to
demonstrate he made  attempts  prior  to  the  board  to  correct  the
contested statement on his PRF.  Had he been diligent  in  maintaining
his records, the correct statement would have been present on the  PRF
for the board’s review.  If the applicant is able to obtain  evaluator
support,   AFPC/DPPPAB   still   would   not    recommend    promotion
reconsideration.

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 on
16 November 1998.  Applicant submitted  a  reaccomplished  PRF  and  a
statement from the Senior Rater of the contested PRF.

A copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachment,  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.  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
colonel by special selection board (SSB), to include a  reaccomplished
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).  His contentions 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.  We note, and have reviewed the reaccomplished  PRF  signed  by
the Senior Rater.  However, as stated by  AFPC/DPPPAB,  the  selection
boards review the entire officer selection record  that  outlines  the
applicant’s accomplishments since the date he  came  on  active  duty.
The officers also receive a copy of the  PRF  30  days  prior  to  the
convening of the board and it is their responsibility to review  their
records and correct errors prior to the  convening  of  the  promotion
board.  Although we are not certain why  the  applicant  did  not  get
promoted, we  believe  it  is  highly  unlikely  that  the  percentage
difference in the statement cited in the CY96B  PRF  and  the  October
1989 OPR was the cause of his nonselection.  In view of the above,  we
are compelled to conclude that the percentage statement on  the  CY96B
PRF was a harmless error.  We agree  with  the  recommendation  of  HQ
AFPC/DPPPAB and adopt 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.   Therefore,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________

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 6 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Gary Appleton, Member
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Sep 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Folder.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 30 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Nov 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 18 Jan 99, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair