RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00253
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His military record be changed to indicate he was a member of  the
Acquisition Corps as of Jan 95 and that his  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) reviewed by the CY98 (P0598B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board
be changed to reflect Acquisition Corps “Yes.”

2.  His Officer Performance Report  (OPR),  rendered  for  the  period
1 Apr 94 through 30 Dec 94, be declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records; and, that the AF Form 77 provided, rendered for the period 25
Jul 94 through 9 Dec 94, be inserted into the record.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel
by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B (1 Jun 98) Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board (P0598B), with the corrected record.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a member of the acquisition corps since Jan 95.  He was  placed
at a disadvantage when he was considered for promotion  because  of  a
policy change regarding how Defense System Management  College  (DSMC)
is documented in an officer’s record.

The rater of the contested report did not have sufficient  supervision
to render an OPR for the period of the report (1 Apr 94 through 30 Dec
94).  The “gap” created by removal of  the  OPR  could  be  filled  by
insertion of the AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet).

He believes these changes to his record will significantly change  the
way a promotion board looks at [his] potential to serve  in  a  higher
grade and correct the errors and/or injustices he  believes  made  his
record appear less competitive than it should have appeared.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of his OSB, the AF
Form 77,  a  copy  of  the  contested  OPR  and  additional  documents
associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)  as  2
Jun 82.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major,
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Jul 94.  The following is
a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

            *  30 Dec 94     Meets Standards (MS)
               30 Dec 95         MS
               30 Dec 96         MS
               30 Aug 97         MS
               15 May 98         MS
            #  15 May 98         MS

*  Contested OPR

# Top report at the time he was considered in-the-promotion zone (IPZ)
and nonselected for promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY98B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Acquisition Officer Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPASA, submitted  a  copy
of a 19 Feb 99 memorandum, which stated that, based on a review of the
applicant’s historical records, he was admitted into  the  Acquisition
Corps on 9 Sep 98, not 16 Jan 95.   He  was  assigned  to  a  Critical
Acquisition Position (CAP) in Dec 94 but was never  officially  placed
on a CAP due to the downgrading of the  position  from  “critical”  to
“noncritical” by his unit.  The applicant was not officially placed on
a CAP, which is required for  Acquisition  Corps  membership  for  the
grade  of  major.   Therefore,  DPASA  nonconcurs  with  changing  the
Acquisition Corps block to “yes” on the applicant’s May 98  OSB.   The
applicant was not placed on a CAP until Aug 98 (Exhibit C).

The Evaluations Programs  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE,  stated  that  they
disagree with the applicant’s analysis of  the  reporting  period  (87
days of supervision).  DPPPE calculated that the  rater  actually  had
136 valid days of supervision as of the 30 Dec 94 close  date  of  the
contested OPR.

DPPPE stated that the applicant bases his request to insert the  9 Dec
94 AF Form 77 into his record primarily on an Air Force policy change,
effective 1 Oct 96, that changed the  method  of  documenting  certain
training periods.  Prior to the policy change, courses considered “in-
utilization” training that lasted 8 weeks or more, but  less  than  20
weeks, such as  DSMC,  were  documented  on  an  AF  Form  77.   DPPPE
indicated that  effective  with  the  implementation  of  the  Officer
Evaluation System (OES) in Aug 88, AF Forms 77 were not  filed  in  an
officer’s record.  These forms  were  maintained  by  the  Evaluations
Section at an officer’s servicing base personnel office  (CBPO).   The
CBPO would then forward the form  to  the  officer’s  rater  when  the
officer’s next performance report was due.  The  rater  then  had  the
option of including information from the AF Form 77 in  the  officer’s
OPR.  Effective 1  Oct  96,  the  Air  Force  changed  the  method  of
documenting the training noted above from using an AF Form 77 to using
an AF Form 475, Training Report (TR).  The effect of  the  change  was
that, unlike the AF Form 77, the TR is filed in an  officer’s  record.
This change was not retroactive.

DPPPE indicated that other than the supervision issue,  the  applicant
neither alleges nor presents  any  evidence  that  the  contested  OPR
contained  any  errors  or  was  an  inaccurate  assessment   of   his
performance.  AF Forms 77 have not been authorized for  filing  in  an
officer’s record  since  1  Aug  88  and  DPPPE  finds  no  compelling
justification to support an exception in this case.   DPPPE  does  not
dispute the significance of his selection for and completion of  DSMC;
however, evidence of this was available to the selection board in both
his OSB (via the 25 Jul 94 entry in the assignment history and Section
IV of the contested OPR.

DPPPE recommended the applicant’s appeal be denied, but that the Board
direct the 30 Dec 94 OPR be corrected by changing the number  of  days
of supervision reflected in Section I, Block 6, from “274”  to  “136.”
The AF Form 77 was properly prepared  in  accordance  with  applicable
regulatory guidance.  It is not authorized for file  in  an  officer’s
record and there is no justification for an exception to policy.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.

The Promotion, Evaluation  and  Recognition  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP,
accepted the advisory opinions of HQ AFPC/DPPPE and HQ  AFPC/DPASA  as
the Air Force position on the respective issues addressed.   As  such,
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration  is  not  warranted  since
they recommended against  altering  the  OSB,  removing  the  OPR  and
inserting the AF Form 77 into the applicant’s record.   Based  on  the
evidence provided, SSB consideration is not appropriate (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that  DPASA
contends that the position was downgraded  between  the  time  he  was
assigned to the job (22 Dec 94) and signed in at Wright-Patterson  AFB
(WPAFB) (16 Jan 95).  If this occurred  in  conjunction  with  TSSAM’s
cancellation, it would have had to happen in  Feb  95,  after  he  was
already in place, thus qualifying him for the Acquisition Corps  since
he would have been on the position for at least  one  day.   The  only
date AFPC can produce showing a downgrade of the  particular  position
is 7 Apr 95.  This would be almost three months  after  occupying  the
position.  The personnel system “dropped the ball” so to speak in this
case and chose not to pursue the matter further.  To this date, he has
received no answer as to why or when this particular position may have
been downgraded.  With regard to the AF Form  77,  he  indicated  that
when a school such as DSMC is compared to the Fighter  Weapons  School
of the rated (pilots) career field (as the AF  Form  475  states),  it
suddenly becomes much more significant  to  the  “warfighter”  than  a
simple acronym spelled out in an  officer’s  assignment  history.   He
understands this policy is not retroactive.  He is merely requesting a
waiver to place his AF  Form  77  into  his  record  to  document  the
information an AF Form 475 would have documented had  the  new  policy
been in effect while he attended DSMC (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application concerning the Acquisition Corps entry on the  OSB
was timely filed.  The request to void the OPR closing 30 Dec  94  was
not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to  excuse
the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice with respect  to  the  P0598B  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB).  In  this  regard,  it  is  apparent  from  the
evidence provided that the position in question was  advertised  as  a
Critical Acquisition Position (CAP).  The applicant  applied  and  was
accepted for the CAP position.   Unbeknownst  to  the  applicant,  his
position was subsequently downgraded to a  “non-critical”  acquisition
position  and  he  was  no  longer  eligible  for  Acquisition   Corps
membership.  We note that HQ AFPC/DPASA indicated that it  is  unknown
when the position was actually downgraded, but that it was  some  time
after the assignment was made and possibly prior or subsequent to  the
applicant’s arrival to his  unit  on  16  Jan  95.   In  view  of  the
circumstances presented, and the fact that the applicant was  eligible
for Acquisition Corps membership until his position was downgraded, we
believe that in order to  rectify  any  possibility  of  an  injustice
resulting from this situation, the applicant should be  credited  with
serving one day in the “critical” position to which he  was  initially
assigned.  We therefore recommend that the  position  in  question  be
indicated as a “critical” position on the date the  applicant  arrived
at his unit (16 January 1995); that his P0598B Officer Selection Brief
(OSB)  be  corrected  to  reflect  his  status  as  a  member  of  the
Acquisition Corps; and, that he be considered  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
CY98B Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  with  inclusion  of  the
corrected Acquisition Corps Section on the OSB.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or  injustice  warranting  partial  relief
with respect to the contested report.  In this regard,  we  note  that
the  appropriate  Air  Force  office  of  primary  responsibility,  HQ
AFPC/DPPPE, recommended changing the number  of  days  of  supervision
reflected on the contested report from “274” to  “136.”   Inasmuch  as
the evidence presented substantiates the incorrect days of supervision
on the contested report, we find that relief is warranted only to  the
extent of changing the period of supervision on the contested  report.
Accordingly, we recommend that the records be corrected  as  indicated
below.

5.  Except for the error with respect to the period of supervision  on
the contested report, we are unpersuaded  by  the  evidence  presented
that the contested report  should  be  removed  from  the  applicant’s
records.  We took notice of the  applicant's  complete  submission  in
judging the merits of the case and we  agree  with  the  opinions  and
recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE and adopt their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
injustice.  Therefore, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to  favorably  consider  applicant’s  request
that the contested report be removed from his record and  that  an  AF
Form 77 be substituted in its place.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.    The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form  707A,
rendered for the period 1 April 1994  through  30  December  1994,  be
amended under Section I, Item 6 (No. Days  Supervision)  to  read  136
rather than 274.

      b.    He served one  day  (16  January  1995)  in  a  “critical”
acquisition position; and, that his Acquisition Corps  status  on  the
P0598B Officer Selection Brief be reflected as “Yes.”

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 1998B (1 June 1998) Lieutenant Colonel  Selection  Board
(P0598B), with inclusion of the corrected Acquisition Corps status  on
his Officer Selection Brief.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Mr. George Franklin, Member
              Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPASA, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 Mar 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 9 Apr 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Apr 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from applicant, dated 11 May 99, w/atch.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 99-00253




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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

            a.   The Field Grade Officer Performance Report,  AF  Form
707A, rendered for the period 1 April 1994 through 30  December  1994,
be amended under Section I, Item 6 (No. Days Supervision) to read  136
rather than 274.

            b.   He served one day (16 January 1995) in a “critical”
acquisition position; and, that his Acquisition Corps status on the
P0598B Officer Selection Brief be reflected as “Yes.”

      It is further directed that he be considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board  for  the
Calendar Year 1998B (1 June 1998) Lieutenant Colonel  Selection  Board
(P0598B), with inclusion of the corrected Acquisition Corps status  on
his Officer Selection Brief.



            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency