RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00038

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by  the  CY96C
and CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, which convened on 8 Jul
96 and 21 Jul 97.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The CY96 and CY97 lieutenant colonel promotion recommendation  process
at the On-Site Inspection  Agency  (OSIA)  did  not  assign  promotion
recommendations based on his record, but other factors.

“Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendations were  assigned  to  officers
with weaker records, while “Promote” recommendations were assigned  to
officers with stronger records.

There was a lack of  ability  by  the  senior  rater/management  level
personnel to judge his acquisition career field experience.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and supportive statements.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that  grade  on  1 Dec 91.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 7 Nov 79.  He  has  a
date of separation (DOS) of 30 Nov 99.  His OER/OPR profile since 1988
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      31 May 88  1-1-1
      20 May 89  Meets Standards
      20 May 90  Meets Standards
      20 May 91  Meets Standards
      20 May 92  Meets Standards
      20 May 93  Meets Standards
      20 May 94  Meets Standards
      20 May 95  Meets Standards
  #   20 May 96  Meets Standards
 ##   31 Mar 97  Meets Standards
###   31 Mar 98  Meets Standards

  # Top Report - CY96C (8 Jul 96) Lt Col Board.
 ## Top Report - CY97C (21 Jul 97) Lt Col Board.
### Top Report - CY98B (1 Jun 98) Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this  application
and recommended denial.  DPPPE noted the applicant’s  allegation  that
his management level had a practice of giving  DPs  to  officers  with
weaker records,  while  making  the  officers  with  stronger  records
compete with a Promote recommendation, and that he provided  a  letter
from a senior rater to support this.  However, the  senior  rater  was
not assigned to the organization  during  that  time  and  was  simply
relating what he had been told by his officers.   There  is  no  first
hand evidence presented.

According  to  DPPPE,  one  of  the  basic  premises  of  the  officer
evaluation system holds that senior raters are in the best position to
judge the promotion potential  of  their  assigned  officers.   It  is
common  for  senior  raters  to  prepare  PRFs  and   make   promotion
recommendations on officers with whom  they  do  not  share  a  common
background.  Senior raters are empowered to judge an officer's ability
to serve at the next higher grade.

DPPPE indicated that the applicant does not request a  change  to  his
record.  Reconsideration for promotion, when no change has been  made,
would only yield the same results.

In DPPPE’s view, the applicant offered no evidence of  impropriety  or
support of the management level.  The senior rater also had  no  first
hand knowledge of impropriety.

A complete copy of the  DPPPE  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

The  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition   Division,   AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPP indicated that
they  concur  with  the  advisory  opinion  rendered  by   AFPC/DPPPE.
According to DPPP, the applicant did not identify  any  error  in  his
record or in  the  promotion  recommendation  form  (PRF)  preparation
process.  The statements he provided in support of his appeal  do  not
identify  an  error  in  his  record.   Rather,  they  appear  to   be
“extensions” of  the  evaluation  reports  contained  in  his  officer
selection record.  The statements merely  elaborate  on  the  specific
accomplishments  the  applicant  made  during   his   career.    They,
therefore, do not believe SSB consideration is  appropriate.   Central
boards evaluate the entire officer selection record  (OSR)  (including
the  promotion  recommendation  form,  officer  performance   reports,
officer  effectiveness   reports,   training   reports,   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.

In DPPP’s  view,  based  on  the  lack  of  evidence  provided,  their
recommendation of denial is appropriate and SSB consideration is   not
appropriate.

A complete copy of the DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, the applicant indicated that the preparation
process errors in the way his CY96 and CY97 PRF  recommendations  were
made and the lack of understanding of his  six  years  of  acquisition
experience warrant consideration by an SSB.

Applicant’s complete submission is 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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary  responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the  contrary,  we  adopt  the  Air  Force  rationale  and
conclude that no basis exists to recommend granting the relief  sought
in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                       Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Mar 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 8 Mar 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Mar 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Apr 99.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair