RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00441
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered between 2  April  1992
and 2 April 1995 be corrected to include the statement “Send to ISS in
residence,” and  that  he  be  considered  for  promotion  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the  CY97C  (16  June  1997)  central  major
selection board with the corrected reports and with the OPR closing 10
June 1997 included in his record.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPRs he received  while  at  Sheppard  AFB  were  subjected  to  a
misplaced policy that resulted in his nonselection to major during his
primary zone.  Intermediate Service School  (ISS)  recommendations  on
OPRs were prohibited for a period of time during his tour at Sheppard,
a restriction which placed him in  a  prejudicial  position  with  the
board.  Despite his accomplishments, an overly cautious application of
a policy meant to remove veiled promotion recommendations resulted  in
his OPRs being (to quote the nonselect counselor at AFPC) “weak”  when
compared to records not subject to the same restrictions.

In addition, although the reporting period of the last OPR  ended  six
days prior to the CY97C  board,  it  was  not  received  by  the  base
military personnel flight (MPF) until 17 July 1997.  Consequently,  it
was not in his records for his primary zone board.

In support of his request, applicant provided his  expanded  comments,
copies of the contested reports, and supporting  statements  from  the
additional rater and reviewer on the 15 December 1994 report, and  the
rater and reviewer on the 28 April 1995 report.  Also included  was  a
statement from the individual who served as the  additional  rater  on
the 28 April 1996 report as well as the rater on the report closing  2
January 1997, and statements from his commander during the period  Sep
95 to Jul 97, and his commander since Oct  97.   Applicant’s  complete
submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFSCD) as
16 November  1986.   He  is  a  Reserve  officer  who  has  served  on
continuous active duty  since  16  November  1986,  and  is  currently
serving in the grade of captain.  He was nonselected for promotion  to
the grade of major  by  the  CY97C,  CY98B,  and  CY99  central  major
selection boards.

A resume of applicant’s OPRs follows:

      PERIOD CLOSING   OVERALL EVALUATION

        18 Dec 87      Education/Training Report (TR)
        16 Jun 89      Meets Standards (MS)
        19 Apr 90      MS
        19 Apr 91      MS
    *   19 Apr 92      MS
    *   19 Apr 93      MS
        24 Sep 93      TR  (SOS - Resident Course)
    *   19 Apr 94      MS
    *   15 Dec 94      MS
    *   28 Apr 95      MS
        28 Apr 96      MS
    #    2 Jan 97      MS
   ##   10 Jun 97      MS
        21 May 98      MS
  ###   24 Nov 98      TR

* Contested reports.

# Top report in file when considered and nonselected for promotion  by
the CY97C central major selection  board  which  convened  on  16 June
1997.

## The rater signed  the  report  on  10  June  1997;  the  additional
rater/reviewer signed the report on 18 July 1997.  This  was  the  top
report in file when  applicant  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion by the CY98B central major selection board which convened on
6 April 1998.

### Top report in file when considered and nonselected  for  promotion
by the CY99 central major selection board which convened  on  8  March
1999.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Reports &  Queries  Section,  AFPC/DPAPS1,  noted  inconsistencies
between the applicant’s source document  OPRs  and  the  duty  history
entries in the applicant’s records.  They updated the  following  duty
history entries:

      19 Dec 87 - added new DAFSC 1111R Special Ops Asst

      28 Sep 89 - DAFSC changed to 1111F vice 1115F

      9 Aug 93 - added new duty history to  reflect  Squadron  Officer
School
      7 Jan 93 - DAFSC changed to 1355B vice 11A3S

      22 May 98 - added new DAFSC 11R3L E-8 Copilot Initial Qual Trng

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition   Division,   AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial  of  applicant’s
request for SSB consideration.  Their comments, in part, follow.

The OPRs dated 19 Apr 92 and 19  Apr  93  include  recommendations  to
attend SOS and the OPR dated 19 Apr 94 includes  a  recommendation  to
send to ISS.  The 15 Dec 94 report does not include  a  recommendation
for ISS.  AFR  36-10(C1),  para  7a,  states  in  part,  “...promotion
recommendations are prohibited.  However,  recommendations  to  select
for   a   particular   assignment,    PME    [Professional    Military
Education]...are appropriate” (emphasis added).  Therefore, there  was
no prohibition against including a recommendation for ISS on the  OPRs
issued within the contested three year period,  further  evidenced  by
their presence on three of the four contested OPRs.  DPPP pointed  out
that the applicant received four more OPRs (dated 28 Apr  95,  28  Apr
96, 2 Jan 97 and 10 Jun 97) while assigned at Holloman  AFB.   Two  of
those OPRs included recommendations to attend ISS in residence.

The applicant included a memorandum from  the  reviewer  on  the  OPRs
dated 22 Dec 94 and 28 Apr 95, who states “...I never stated a  policy
preventing recommending ISS in a captain’s OPR prior to selection  for
major....”  He later adds in his final  paragraph,  “If  [applicant’s]
supervisor were systematically precluded from recommending ISS, then I
would support a  correction  to  his  record  (emphasis  added).”   As
already noted, DPPP stated three of the contested OPRs  issued  within
the three year period, and two of the next four issued  while  he  was
stationed at Holloman contain recommendations for PME.  It is  obvious
the reviewer  of  the  two  OPRs  listed  above  does  not  support  a
correction to the reports  -  because  ISS  recommendations  were  not
systematically precluded from the reports the applicant received while
assigned at Holloman AFB.

The rater of the 19 Dec 94 OPR states, “I had  gotten  the  word  this
[referring  to  including  PME  recommendations  on  OPRs]   was   not
acceptable or simple  oversight.   I  do  not  believe  I  would  have
committed such an oversight on our Squadron Flight  Commander  of  the
Year...although this was over 3 years ago, I believe that had  I  been
allowed, I definitely would have recommended [applicant] for selection
for in-residence ISS.”  Either the  rater  believed  recommending  the
applicant for ISS was, by itself, a veiled  promotion  recommendation;
or, he omitted the ISS recommendation as an oversight.   DPPP  assumes
he intentionally left the ISS recommendation off of the 19 Dec 94 OPR.
 If he believed a  recommendation  for  ISS  was  a  veiled  promotion
recommendation,  that  shows  forethought  and  consideration  of  the
recommendation - not an oversight.  In fact,  the  statement  that  he
does not believe he would have committed  such  an  oversight  on  his
Squadron Flight Commander of the Year does  appear  plausible,  as  he
signed the OPR without an ISS recommendation.

The applicant contends he  was  not  selected  for  promotion  because
recommendations for  ISS  were  missing  from  his  OPRs.   While  the
applicant is entitled to his opinion, the  Air  Force  has  determined
that corrections of this nature  do  not  warrant  SSB  consideration.
There is no clear evidence that the omission of the ISS recommendation
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.   The  selection  board
had his entire officer selection  record  that  clearly  outlines  his
accomplishments since the date he came on active duty.   DPPP  is  not
convinced the omission of the PME statement from  the  contested  OPRs
caused the applicant’s nonselection.   Therefore,  they  are  strongly
opposed to the applicant receiving SSB consideration on this issue.

Noting applicant’s contention that the 10 Jun 97 OPR was missing  from
his OSR when he was considered for promotion by the CY97C board,  DPPP
stated that while the  OPR  was  late  to  file,  it  is  obvious  his
evaluators did not intend for it to be present in the applicant’s  OSR
for the CY97C board’s review - especially since  the  final  evaluator
did not even sign the report until 18 Jul 97, some 30 days  after  the
CY97C  board  convened.   Therefore,   they   do   not   believe   SSB
consideration on this issue is warranted.

DPAPS1 noted several minor discrepancies in applicant’s  duty  history
and made appropriate changes in the PDS - none of which DPPP would  be
willing to grant promotion  reconsideration  as  this  information  is
readily available in the applicant’s OSR.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterated his  contention  that  several  of  the  OPRs  he
received at Sheppard AFB were subjected to a misapplied  policy  which
prohibited recommendations for  ISS.   This  policy  resulted  in  his
nonselection to major during  his  primary  zone.   This  is  not  his
opinion but a fact as stated to him during his nonselect counseling at
AFPC.  This was, in fact, the only reason he [the nonselect counselor]
offered for justification for his nonselection.

Applicant took  exception  to  the  DPPP  advisory  and  provided  his
expanded comments highlighting  what  he  believes  are  inaccuracies,
mistaken assumptions and negative innuendo prevalent in the advisory.

Applicant’s complete response 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.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are  not  persuaded  that  the  contested  OPRs
should be amended as  requested.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation  of  the
Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis 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 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 10 Mar 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 11 Mar 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Mar 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter fr Applicant, dated 26 May 99, w/atch.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair