RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00711
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 30 Sep 95  and  30 Sep
96, be amended to include recommendations  for  professional  military
education (PME) and that he be considered for promotion to major by  a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B  Central  Major  Selection
Board (P0498B), which convened on 6 Apr 98.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rating chain was unaware of the importance promotion board members
placed on PME recommendations when they originally wrote the contested
OPRs.

In support of his request, applicant submits personal  statements  and
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   his
contentions, which include copies of his AFI 36-2401 appeals  (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  12
Dec 87.  He is currently serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 28 Aug 91.

Applicant's profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               30 Sep 92     Meets Standards (MS)
               20 Feb 93          MS
               18 Feb 94     Education/Training Report
               20 Feb 94          MS
               20 Feb 95          MS
            *  30 Sep 95     Meets Standards (MS)
            *  30 Sep 96          MS
            #  29 Jul 97          MS
            ##  5 May 98          MS
               10 Feb 99          MS


*  Contested OPRs

# Top report at the time he was considered In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ)
and nonselected for promotion to major  by  the  CY98B  Central  Major
Board, which convened on 6 Apr 98.

## Top report at the time he was considered  Above-the-Promotion  Zone
(APZ) and selected for promotion to major by the CY99A  Central  Major
Board, which convened on 8 Mar 99.

Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-
2401, were considered by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB)  on
6 Nov 98 and 27 Jan 99.  The ERAB partially approved  the  applicant’s
appeal regarding the OPR closing 30 Sep  95.   The  ERAB  removed  the
augmentation  recommendation  from  the   report,   but   denied   the
applicant’s request to add a recommendation for professional  military
education (PME) to the report and grant him  SSB  consideration.   The
ERAB denied the applicant’s request to add a PME recommendation to the
OPR closing 30 Sep 96.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ   AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.   DPPP  stated  that
none of the supporters of the 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.   The
raters have all stated that had they known how much emphasis promotion
board members placed on PME recommendations, they would have  included
them on the OPRs.  The appeals process is not meant to rewrite history
or enhance chances for promotion.  As such, DPPP is not convinced  the
contested reports are not accurate as written, therefore, they do  not
support the applicant’s request to  add  PME  recommendations  to  the
OPRs.  PME recommendations on OPRs  are  a  very  small  part  of  the
officer’s entire record of accomplishment.  DPPP  is  opposed  to  the
applicant receiving SSB consideration on this issue.  DPPP agrees with
the  applicant’s  contention  that   recommendations   for   PME   are
appropriate on OPRs; however, they are not mandatory.  Therefore,  the
OPRs are  not  erroneous  simply  because  they  do  not  include  PME
recommendations.

The applicant contends the original 30 Sep  95  OPR  contained  errors
(the ERAB removed the erroneous information) and  was  late  to  file.
DPPP stated that many OPRs are late to  file,  but  amending  them  to
include a PME recommendation, or embellishing them subsequent to  them
becoming a matter of record is not  appropriate.   DPPP  contends  the
“late to file” error is corrected when a report is finally filed in  a
member’s OSR and becomes a matter of record.  In  this  instance,  the
applicant and his rating chain had an additional 131 days  (since  the
report  was  late  to  file)  to  identify   the   erroneous   augment
recommendations on the OPR and include  desired  PME  recommendations.
The ERAB “righted the wrong” and removed the augment  statements  from
the  contested  report.   The  Air  Force  considers  these  types  of
corrections  to  be   administrative   in   nature;   therefore,   SSB
consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He stated that individuals familiar with the promotion process believe
PME recommendations,  consistent  between  the  rater  and  additional
rater, are mandatory for promotion  selection.   In  response  to  the
advisory writer’s statement that “the OPRs are  not  erroneous  simply
because they do not include recommendations  for  PME,”  he  indicated
that these  “correct”  reports  unfairly  discriminate  against  those
officers with raters who are not privy to the unwritten  standards  of
the promotion boards.  This inconsistency  is  further  compounded  by
administrative policies  of  each  unit.   He  believes  the  advisory
writer’s perspective, as one directorate within AFPC, is  inconsistent
with  Officer  Promotions,  another   directorate   in   AFPC.    This
inconsistency may be the result of  “8  different  evaluation  systems
with 14 major variations” in response “to continuing inflation in  OER
ratings and indorsement levels.”  Despite the most recent  efforts  by
the CS/AF and AF/DP, the  written  guidance  for  performance  reports
falls short of  the  unwritten  standards  applied  by  the  promotion
boards.  Therefore, he request the Board consider the rater’s (Colonel
B---‘s) requested change  of  his  assessment  to  “Strong  leadership
skills—select for Advanced Communications Officer Training and ISS  in
residence.”

He was selected for promotion to the grade of  major,  above-the-zone,
by the CY99A promotion  board.   Notably,  his  records  included  two
additional reports with consistent  recommendations  for  command  and
PME.   Still,  he  is  one  year  behind  his  peers  in  professional
development.

If the Board corrects  either  report,  he  requests  the  Board  also
authorize consideration of the Special Selection Board as an  “in  the
zone” candidate.  The erroneous recommendations of the  first  report,
and the “inconsistent” recommendations of the second  report,  ensured
the CY98B promotion board did not review accurate or fair  reports  of
his promotion potential.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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.   With  regard  to
Professional  Military  Education  (PME)  recommendations,  the  Board
majority noted that the governing Air Force instruction stipulates PME
recommendations  are  optional.   While  the   statements   from   the
evaluators reflect their rationale for not  including  the  additional
information at the time they rendered the  reports  in  question,  the
Board majority is unpersuaded by these statements.   Additionally,  it
is the Board majority’s opinion that since the final  reviewer  was  a
colonel, it was his responsibility, at the time the contested  reports
were rendered, to question the omission of a PME recommendation, if he
believed one was warranted, and to  have  had  the  reports  corrected
before they became a matter of record.  The Board majority believes it
was the decision of the evaluators, at the time the contested  reports
were initially written, that the reports were complete  and  accurate.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence that the  applicant’s
record before the CY98B  Central  Major  Board  was  substantially  in
error, or that the board was unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision
concerning his promotability, the Board majority finds  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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

Ms. Sparks and Mr. Franklin voted to  deny  the  applicant’s  request.
Mr. Kauvar voted to grant the applicant’s request because he  did  not
feel the applicant’s rating chain was cognizant of the importance of a
PME recommendation, but he did not desire to submit a minority report.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 6 Apr 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Apr 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 21 Jun 99, w/atchs.



                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 99-00711




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                  FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      After carefully reviewing the circumstances of this case. I
disagree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the
applicant’s request to amend the contested Officer Performance Reports
(OPRs) to include recommendations for Professional Military Education
(PME) and to be provided promotion consideration to the grade of major
by a Special Selection Board (SSB) should be denied.

      I have reviewed the statements from the applicant’s rating chain
which specifically outline the reasons why the contested reports are
flawed and support the applicant’s request.  In view of the statements
provided by the evaluators of the contested reports, and having no
basis to question their integrity, I agree with the minority member of
the panel that it is not equitable to penalize the applicant for the
evaluators’ misconception concerning PME recommendations.
Accordingly, it is my decision that the contested OPRs should be
amended to include PME recommendations and his corrected record should
be considered for promotion to the grade of major by an SSB for the
CY98B Central Major Board.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                         Air Force
Review Boards Agency



AFBCMR 99-00711




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 Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form
707B, rendered for the period 21 Feb 95 through 30 Sep 95, was amended
in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by deleting the last sentence
and replacing it with “Definitely ready for selection for ACOT and ISS
in residence!”; and, was amended in Section VII, Additional Rater
Overall Assessment, by adding to the end of the last sentence “and ISS
in residence.”

            b.   The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form
707B, rendered for the period 1 Oct 95 through 30 Sep 96, was amended
in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by deleting the last sentence
and replacing it with “Strong leadership skills--select for Advanced
Communications Officer Training and ISS in residence!”

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year
1998B Central Major Selection Board, with his corrected record.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency