RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03265
            INDEX CODE:  131

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  for  the  Calendar  Year
1998B (CY98B) Central Major Selection Board which  convened  on  6 Apr
98.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was inaccurately considered  for  promotion  Above-the-Primary-Zone
(APZ) instead of In-the-Primary-Zone (IPZ) by his  rating  chain;  the
Report of Individual (RIP)  his  rating  chain  used  to  prepare  his
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did  not  indicate  completion  of
Squadron Officer School (SOS) or an advanced academic degree; and  his
2 Jan 98 Officer Performance Report (OPR) was  not  available  to  his
senior rater when he wrote his PRF and the most recent  OPR  available
to the senior rater was over five years old due to a break in service.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant indicates that on 17 Aug 83, he entered active duty as a
second lieutenant.  Prior to leaving  active  duty  in  1992,  he  was
promoted to the grade of captain, effective, and with a date  of  rank
(DOR) of 17 Aug 87.

On 31 Dec 92, after being  separated  through  the  Reduction-in-Force
(RIF) process, he involuntarily left active duty.

On 3 Jan 97, the applicant returned to active duty  and  his  DOR  was
adjusted to 25 Feb 90.  He is currently  serving  on  extended  active
duty in the grade of captain with a DOR of 25 Feb 90.

Applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Report (OER)/OPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             26 Mar 84        Education/Training Report (TR)
             10 Apr 85                Education/TR
             19 Oct 85                   1-1-1
             19 Apr 86                   1-1-1
             15 Dec 86                   1-1-1
             13 Dec 87                   1-1-1
             13 Dec 88               Meets Standards
             13 Dec 89               Meets Standards
             15 Dec 89                Education/TR
             13 Dec 90               Meets Standards
             17 Jul 91               Meets Standards
             12 Jun 92               Meets Standards
              1 Nov 92               Meets Standards
    No report available for the period 2 Nov 92 through 2 Jan 97.
              2 Jan 98               Meets Standards
              2 Jan 99               Meets Standards

Applicant has two nonselections for promotion to the grade of major by
the CY98B and the CY99A (17 Apr 99) Central Major Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion Management,  AFPC/DPPPOO,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that while the applicant contends the  6 Jan
98 memorandum he received from USAFE MSS caused his  rating  chain  to
inaccurately consider him as an APZ candidate because his DOR  (25 Feb
90) is prior to the senior  IPZ  officer  listed,  the  memorandum  is
addressed specifically  to  the  applicant  and  no  documentation  is
provided to indicate if the same memorandum was also provided  to  the
rating chain.  This point appears  actually  somewhat  moot,  however,
since the senior rater (who is tasked with overall preparation of  the
PRF) is provided a Master Eligibility Listing (MEL)  of  all  officers
eligible for  a  specific  promotion  board  which  clearly  indicates
whether an officer is an IPZ or APZ candidate.   No  documentation  is
provided to indicate the MEL was inaccurate or that any member of  the
rating chain inaccurately  considered  the  applicant  to  be  an  APZ
candidate.  While  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  his  Officer
Preselection Brief (OPB), the OPB is not what is used to  prepare  the
PRF but is provided to officers only to ensure the accuracy of data it
contains.  It is strictly for the officers review to  get  any  errors
correct prior to the central selection board.   The  senior  rater  is
provided a separate notice to prepare the  PRF.   As  for  the  rating
chain not being aware of applicant’s completion of SOS at the time the
PRF was prepared, the applicant has an AF Form 375 (Education Training
Report) on file in his records (which are used in the PRF  preparation
process) clearly indicating his completion of SOS.  Additionally,  the
applicant makes no mention of why he did not advise his  rating  chain
of any information he thought was not readily available when they were
preparing his PRF (as was his responsibility to do so).   Furthermore,
AFI 36-2502, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation,  paragraph
6.3.3.2, states, “Do not have an  SSB  if,  by  exercising  reasonable
diligence, the officer should have discovered the  error  or  omission
and could have taken corrective action before the originally scheduled
board convened.”  DPPPOO recommends the application be denied.

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

The Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant contends that his  senior
rater did not have enough current information to accurately assess his
promotion potential.  On the issue of the inaccurate RIP, he indicates
that his commander gave him a copy of this  document  during  the  PRF
process and  he  immediately  began  working  to  fix  it.   Applicant
certainly had the option at that time to bring  these  errors  to  the
attention  of  his  senior  rater  to  ensure  he  was  aware  of  the
inaccuracies.  This  would  allow  them  to  consider  the  additional
information during the PRF process.  If the applicant desires a change
in his PRF, he must  show  senior  rater  and  management  level  (ML)
President support.  On the issue of the  lack  of  OPRs  on  file  for
senior rater review, the applicant’s first  OPR  (after  returning  to
active duty) closed out on 2 Jan 98.  Because of  the  date  of  close
out, there was no requirement for this  OPR  to  be  included  in  the
applicant’s Record of Performance (ROP) during the PRF preparation  or
management level review (MLR)  process.   However,  the  senior  rater
certainly had the option of  considering  any  accomplishments  during
that period.  DPPPE is of the  opinion  that  reconsideration  without
changing anything in the applicant’s PRF or ROP would only  yield  the
same results as the original promotion consideration.  Therefore, they
recommend denial of SSB consideration.  If the  applicant  desires  to
change his PRF, he must show senior rater or ML President support.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
also reviewed this application and indicated that  the  applicant  has
not provided adequate documentation to prove  an  error  or  injustice
occurred in the MLR process or in his actual  promotion  consideration
by the CY98B Central Board.  DPPP also points out that  the  applicant
should have received a copy of his PRF approximately 30 days prior  to
the central board and if he believed  the  PRF  to  be  erroneous,  he
should have approached  his  senior  rater  then,  not  after  he  was
nonselected for promotion.  Furthermore, central boards  evaluate  the
entire officer selection record (OSR) (including the PRF, OPRs,  OERs,
letters of evaluation,  decorations,  and  officer  selection  brief),
assessing whole person factors such as job  performance,  professional
qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership,  and  academic
and professional military education (PME).  The  selection  board  had
applicant’s entire OSR that clearly outlines his accomplishments since
the date  he  came  on  active  duty.   DPPPA  does  not  believe  SSB
consideration on this issue is warranted and recommends denial of  his
request to receive SSB consideration.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a  four-page
response, with attachments, disagreeing with the advisory opinions and
providing additional comments and a letter  from  the  Air  University
commander, dated 10 May 99 (see Exhibit G).

On 21 Jun 99, the 3rd Air Force  Commander  provided  a  statement  in
response  to  applicant’s  request  for  information  referencing  his
nonselection for promotion (see Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

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,  including  the
statement from the commander, dated 21 Jun 99, we  are  not  persuaded
that he should  be  provided  promotion  consideration  by  SSB.   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  therefore  agree  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force 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 21 September 1999, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Nov 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 31 Dec 98.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Feb 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 5 Feb 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Feb 99.
     Exhibit G.  Letter fr applicant, dated 10 May 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter fr commander, dated 21 Jun 99, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair