RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02897
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  for  the  period
2 Jun 96 through 1 Jun 97 and his Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)
for the Calendar  Year  1997C  (CY97C)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  be
corrected to reflect his selection as  an  Air  Combat  Command  (ACC)
squadron commander candidate.

2.    His corrected record be considered by  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  officer  selection  record  (OSR)  was  erroneous  when  he   was
considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the
CY97C board because his rater inadvertently omitted his  selection  as
an ACC squadron commander candidate from his  1 Jun  97  OPR  and  his
CY97C PRF.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of  an  e-mail
excerpt, a copy of the contested and  revised  versions  of  the  OPR,
memorandums of support from the rater and additional rater, a copy  of
the CY97C PRF and proposed replacement PRF (unsigned and  unmarked  by
senior rater), and a copy of AFPC/DPPPA’s memorandum.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  is  30 May
81.  He is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 93.

Applicant’s OER/OPR profile since 1990 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             8 Mar 90               Meets Standards
             8 Mar 91               Meets Standards
             1 Dec 91               Meets Standards
             1 Dec 92               Meets Standards
             1 Dec 93               Meets Standards
             1 Jun 94               Meets Standards
             1 Jun 95               Meets Standards
             1 Jun 96               Meets Standards
           * 1 Jun 97               Meets Standards
             3 Mar 98               Meets Standards

     *  Contested report.

Applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which  was  denied
by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) on 11 Mar 98.

Applicant has three  nonselections  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C, CY98B (1 Jun 98), and  CY99A  (17 Apr
99) Central Lieutenant Colonel selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Acting Chief, Appeals &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this
application and  indicated  that  evaluation  reports  are  considered
accurate as written unless substantial evidence  to  the  contrary  is
provided.  As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to  becoming
a matter of record.  Any report can  be  rewritten  to  be  more  hard
hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the  ratee’s  promotion
potential but the time to do that  is  before  the  report  becomes  a
matter of record.  The rater from the report now  believes  he  should
have included the applicant’s selection as an ACC  squadron  commander
candidate on the OPR that closed out 1 Jun 97.  The indorser from  the
report agrees the information was inadvertently omitted from the  OPR;
however, neither 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, the evaluators have  not  explained  why
the information  contained  in  the  reaccomplished  versions  of  the
contested OPR and PRF was not available to them when the reports  were
initially rendered.  Apparently, a phone call from AFPC/DPPPAE to  the
applicant’s former commander revealed she had obtained a copy  of  the
squadron commander candidates list in April and had provided a copy to
the senior rater.  While the applicant’s rater may not have been aware
of his subordinates selection as a squadron candidate, it is  clear  a
copy of the list was provided to the applicant’s senior rater prior to
the close-out date of the OPR.  The senior rater could have chosen  to
add the information to the OPR before it became a  matter  of  record.
DPPPA  points  out  that  the  senior  rater  does  not  support   the
applicant’s request to revise the CY97C PRF as evidenced by the  staff
summary sheets (attached to advisory opinion) submitted in support  of
applicant’s appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401.  In  addition,
the appeals process does not exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance
chances for  promotion  and  it  appears  this  is  exactly  what  the
applicant is attempting to do—recreate history.  As such, DPPPA is not
convinced the contested reports are not accurate as written and do not
believe  that  SSB  consideration  is  warranted.   Furthermore,   the
applicant could have elected to write a  letter  to  the  CY97C  board
president to ensure they  were  aware  of  his  selection  as  an  ACC
squadron commander candidate.  However, there is no evidence applicant
wrote  any  such  letter.   Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  DPPPA
recommends denial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
16 Nov 98 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 noted the statements
provided from the rater  and  additional  rater/senior  rater  of  the
contested reports.  However, these statements do not convince us  that
the applicant was rated unfairly or that the reports in question  were
in error at the time they were written.  In this  respect,  while  the
information may not have been known to the rater when he initiated the
contested reports, it appears that the senior rater was  provided  the
information on the ACC selections in Apr 97  and  he  therefore  could
have included this  information  in  his  indorsement.   Additionally,
while the senior rater stated that he supported applicant’s request to
add his ACC Squadron Commander candidacy to the contested OPR, we note
that the senior rater indicated, on the 29 Oct 97 Staff Summary Sheet,
that he did not support reaccomplishing the CY97C  PRF.   Furthermore,
we also note that the applicant could have written  a  letter  to  the
CY97C board president to ensure the board was aware of  his  selection
as an ACC squadron commander candidate.  In view of the foregoing, and
in the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  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 17 August 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Mike Novel, Member
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Sep 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 29 Oct 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Nov 98.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair