RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02628
      INDEX CODE: 131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The original Calendar  Year  1996B  (CY96B)  Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF) be corrected as follows:

      a.    The “Do Not Promote This Board”  be  changed  to  a  “Definitely
Promote” (“DP”).

      b.    Change “manage-ment” to “management” on the second line of  unit
mission description.

      c.    Change the Duty Title to “Chief, Strategy Branch.”

      d.    Replace the Key Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities  in  Section
III, Job Description, with the following verbiage: “Develops  and  evaluates
joint and allied warfighting  concepts  and  initiatives  impacting  US  and
allied air forces in theater.  Analyzes US and NATO doctrine, strategy,  and
policy  guidance  to  develop  USAFE  positions  on  force   structure   and
employment.  Assesses military capabilities, roles and missions,  and  force
structures affecting US and  NATO  strategy  implementation.   Develops  and
coordinates US and allied plans and concepts  in  support  of  SACEUR’s  and
USCINCEUR’s warfighting objectives.  Represents USAFE interests to NATO  air
boards and air  working  parties  on  matters  of  doctrine  and  long-range
strategy.  Formulates concepts for future interoperability of US/allied  air
power.

      e.    Replace Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, verbiage with:

            -    Outstanding officer whose strongest quality is  leadership;
superior performer in many diverse assignments
            -    Great start in ATC; named “top IP” by students/”IP  of  the
Month” by the unit; SOS Distinguished Graduate
             -     Unmatched  aviation  skills;  top   graduate   in   Pilot
Instructor Training class; instructor pilot in T-38/F-15
             -     Excellent  Flight   Safety   Officer;   thorough   mishap
investigations; authored changes to F-15 flight manual
            -    Brilliant tactician in PACAF; exploited missile  envelopes,
solved serious radar/missile interface problem
            -    Superb joint duty  performance;  Air/Land  Battle  Doctrine
expert; best liaison officer for Army at Ft Hood
            -    Superior leadership  at  Kadena;  mission  commander,  wing
staff division chief, assistant operations officer
             -     #1  of  5  squadron  commanders  at  Tyndall;  tremendous
customer support with 35 year-old aircraft
            -    Has excelled  in  toughest  squadron  command  position  --
Visionary leader we must promote – this board

2.    His CY96B Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected as follows:

      a.    Assignment History Duty Title be corrected to  reflect,  “Chief,
Strategy Branch” effective 8 June 1996.

      b.    Delete the 13 August 1996 duty title “Action Officer” entry.

3.    Approve, in writing, a waiver for time-in-grade served  to  retire  as
an O-6 from three years to two years.

4.    He be considered for promotion to the  grade  of  colonel  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1996B  (CY96B)  Central  Colonel
Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PRF he received with the “Do Not Promote” endorsement was  based  solely
on the Letter of Admonishment, Unfavorable Information  File,  and  Referral
OPR which were removed by the AFBCMR.  At the time  he  received  this  PRF,
Major General S--- told him that the one “DP” endorsement  that  he  had  to
give out (based on five officers in the primary zone) would have  come  down
to a records comparison between him and one  other  officer.   General  S---
said he would have had to carefully review the  records  before  making  his
decision,  but  that  wasn’t  required  because  he  would  be  giving   him
(applicant) a Do Not  Promote  endorsement,  based  on  his  (General  S---)
conversations with General R---.  The  other  officer  did  receive  a  “DP”
endorsement and was selected  for  colonel  by  the  CY96  Board.   Even  if
General S--- had elected to give the other officer his available  Definitely
Promote endorsement, there would still have been the opportunity for him  to
compete at the MAJCOM Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) for an  additional  “DP”
endorsement.  Historically, staff officers at the MAJCOM compete  better  at
the MLEB than officers in the field at Numbered Air Force Staffs  or  Wings.
Every effort is being made to present the PRF, as it should  have  been  for
the original board, in the  absence  of  the  OPR  removed  by  the  AFBCMR.
Clearly, without the adverse actions that the AFBCMR has removed,  he  would
still have been the Chief of the Operations and Training Branch when he  met
the board.  Since he was moved, every effort must  be  made  to  present  an
accurate depiction of his duties and responsibilities at the time the  board
met.  A duty title as DO as the Chief of the Operations and Training  Branch
has two problems associated with  it.   First,  he  was  removed  from  that
position on 13 August 1996, well before the promotion  board  met.   Second,
it may highlight to  some  prospective  promotion  board  members  that  are
familiar  with  the  CT-43  mishap  that  he  was  somehow  disciplined   in
conjunction with that tragedy.  This could severely  prejudice  his  chances
of successful promotion on an SSB.  Changing the  Duty  Title  and  the  Key
Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities to the same ones which are reflected  on
the OPR which rated the period 8 June 1996 to 8  May  1997  more  accurately
reflect actual duties during this time.   Note  that  this  period  includes
both the time the PRF was written and the time that the  actual  board  met.
Given that General S--- had already made up his mind to give him  a  Do  Not
Promote This Board recommendation, it is clear that he didn’t  really  spend
a great deal of time trying to  portray  a  positive  message  on  the  PRF.
There is significant empty space on the  PRF,  and  it  is  clear  that  his
intention was to ensure that he did not get promoted.   He  feels  that  the
requested verbiage more accurately reflects both his  record  and  promotion
potential.

He further contends that  it  is  naïve  to  not  recognize  some  potential
problem areas if he is  promoted  and  elects  to  return  to  active  duty.
Anyone familiar with his situation may be reluctant to do  anything  to  get
him an assignment commensurate with his background and ability.  Anyone  who
knows the circumstances in this case might feel that by doing him  a  favor,
they risk offending the Chief of Staff.  Action  officers  at  AFPC  do  not
make colonels’ assignments – they’re made by general officers.  The  general
officer  community  is  a  small,  tightly   knit   one   where   knowledge,
particularly of a case like his, will spread quickly.  Again the  perception
that it just isn’t worth the risk to one’s own career to hire  him  or  help
place him in a good assignment may become the reality that he  lives.   That
is why he would like to get approval in advance for the length  of  time  he
would need to serve to retire again as a colonel.  The  handwriting  on  the
wall for him is that the injustice done to his career and him  could  easily
continue, despite the best efforts to try to make  everything  right  again.
At least with the time-in-grade waiver, he would know in  advance  how  long
he has to serve should he receive a less-than-desirable assignment.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits HQ AFPC/DPPPAB letter, dated  24
February 1998, CY94, CY95, and CY96 Colonels Board PRFs, and OPR  closing  8
May 1997.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 February 1998, the AFBCMR considered, and granted, applicant’s  appeal
submitted on 28 September 1997, that (a) the Letter of  Admonishment,  dated
12 July 1996, and Unfavorable Information File Action, be removed  from  his
records, and (b) the Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 20 August 1995 through 7 June 1996, be removed  from
his  records.   It  was  further  recommended  that  he  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 1996B Central Colonel Board.  (TAB 1)

On 27 April 1998, the applicant advised that he had been counseled  by  AFPC
that he had the option of requesting a direct promotion to colonel  as  well
as  removing  the  rest  of  the  derogatory  remarks  from   his   records.
Alternatively, he could seek correction of the PRF  and  other  records  and
seek promotion by SSB.  He chose the latter.

On  1  June  1998,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP,  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition
Division, advised that due to unique circumstances, the applicant  requested
that the SSB directed by the Board be held  in  abeyance  until  the  issues
regarding his PRF are resolved.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition  Div,  Directorate  of  Pers
Program Mgt, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and states that they  have
no objection to correcting the typographical error in Section II.  Based  on
the information contained in the applicant’s OPR closing 8  May  1997,  they
do not object to correcting section III of the  CY96B  PRF  to  reflect  the
duty  title  to  “Chief,  Strategy  Branch”   and   the   key   duties   and
responsibilities to match  the  OPR  closing  8  May  1997.   They  do  not,
however,  support  the  request   to   completely   reword   the   promotion
recommendation  narrative  in  Section  IV  and   changing   the   promotion
recommendation to a “DP.”  They previously were willing to  support  removal
of the last two bullet statements in the narrative portion, include  two  of
the  bullet  statements  from  CY95B  PRF  in  their  place,  and   a   “DP”
recommendation.  However, the applicant now wishes to completely reword  the
narrative portion and asks that the promotion recommendation be  changed  to
a “DP.”   They  cannot  support  this  request  without  evaluator  support.
Although the applicant indicates he will not be able to  obtain  the  senior
rater  and  management  level  review  (MLR)  board  president  support,  he
provides nothing to substantiate that this  is  the  case.   They  urge  the
applicant to contact both the senior  rater  and  MLR  board  president  for
statements  either  denying   or   giving   their   support.    Until   such
documentation of support or  evidence  of  his  attempts  to  contact  these
individuals is received, they cannot support the requested  changes  to  the
contested PRF or upgrading it to a “DP.”  Reference the applicant’s  request
to add the duty title of “Chief, Strategy Branch,” effective  8  June  1996,
and deleting the 13 August 1996 duty history entry  which  reflects  a  duty
title of “Action Officer”.  They have  no  objection  to  making  either  of
these corrections to the OSB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluations  and  states  the  senior
rater supports changing his promotion recommendation  to  a  “Promote,”  and
provides a new, signed PRF for the board.  The MLR  President  supports  the
senior rater’s recommendation.  However, he still  maintains  that  the  PRF
changes that he has requested best reflect both  his  record  and  promotion
potential.  Contrary to the way their comments  appear  at  face  value,  he
believes that the senior rater’s and MLR Board President’s comments  support
his claim that it is unrealistic to expect any MAJCOM support  to  help  him
get promoted.  Clearly, the senior rater found he could change the last  two
sentences in the narrative  and  change  his  recommendation  to  “Promote.”
After all, there is now no official documentation anywhere in his  corrected
records that would justify a “Do Not  Promote  This  Board”  recommendation.
He urges the members of the AFBCMR to consider that his original package  of
27 April 1998 reflects reality – it truly was  unrealistic  to  expect  that
anyone within the USAFE  chain  would  be  interested  in  helping  him  get
promoted.  As he clearly documented in his original package to  the  AFBCMR,
the senior rater told him on 16 August  1997  that  he  (senior  rater)  was
directed by General Ryan to ensure that he  did  not  get  promoted.   Given
General Ryan’s promotion to be Chief of Staff, it is completely  unrealistic
to expect the senior rater to side with him (applicant) against  the  Chief.
He respectfully requests that his PRF narrative be changed  to  the  one  he
requested in his original package with a “Definitely Promote” endorsement.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits  a  statement  from  the  senior
rater, stating  that  based  on  a  subsequent  review  of  the  applicant’s
corrected  records,  he  is  submitting  a  revised  PRF  with  an   overall
recommendation of “Promote” for consideration at a supplemental board.   The
applicant also submits a statement from  the  MLR  Board  President  stating
that based on the record  as  reflected,  he  concurs  with  senior  rater’s
proposed PRF as written.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition  Div,  Directorate  of  Pers
Program Mgt, AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the
applicant contends the revised PRF does not reflect his  accomplishments  or
his promotion potential.  The revised PRF is identical to the  original  “Do
Not Promote (DNP)” PRF used by the board with the exception of the last  two
bullet statements in section IV and the  overall  promotion  recommendation.
The senior rater reviewed the applicant’s corrected  record  and  determined
the last two bullet statements (which caused the DNP recommendation)  should
be removed and  replaced.   The  applicant,  however,  believes  the  senior
should have highlighted his more significant career accomplishments  instead
of only changing the last two statements.   The  applicant  has  provided  a
proposed “DP” PRF with the accomplishments  he  believes  should  have  been
included on the revised  version.   They  note,  though,  the  senior  rater
elected not to support the DP recommendation and embellished  PRF  as  there
is no signature by the senior rater on the proposed PRF.  It is  the  senior
rater who determines what ratee accomplishments should be  included  on  the
PRF - not the ratee.  Based on the documentation from both the senior  rater
and  MLRB  president,  they   recommend   the   PRF   with   the   “Promote”
recommendation be accepted for file and used for the  applicant’s  promotion
reconsideration by the CY96B  board.   Without  the  support  for  the  “DP”
recommendation, they cannot recommend  the  proposed  PRF  be  accepted  for
file.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that in  February
1998, when he first found out that he also needed to  correct  his  PRF,  he
was advised by AFPC/DPPP that there were two  avenues  to  accomplish  this.
He could ask for a direct promotion, or he  could  ask  to  amend  the  PRF,
change the overall recommendation to a “DP” and compete at an SSB.   At  the
time that he discussed this issue with an action  officer  at  Randolph,  he
was told by phone and electronic mail that AFPC/DPPP was willing to  support
either option.  He agrees that at the time this issue  was  discussed,  they
were only talking about removing the final two lines of  the  narrative  and
substituting two lines of his choosing, but the “DP” endorsement  was  never
in doubt, nor, it seemed, was AFPC/DPPP’s commitment to try to help him  get
promoted.  He has concluded that if he had been content with  just  changing
the final two lines and changing the overall recommendation to a “DP,”  that
AFPC/DPPP would have rubber-stamped his  entire  package  and  supported  it
without bothering to find out what the Senior Rater and MLR Board  President
had to
say.  Since he decided to ask for a change to  the  entire  narrative,  they
insisted on hearing from the Senior  Rater  and  MLR  Board  President.   In
other words, he had to prove that he could not get General S---  or  General
P--- to support  his  recommended  changes  to  the  narrative  and  overall
promotion  recommendation  before  AFPC  would  consider  supporting   those
changes without Senior Rater/MLR Board President support.  But  now,  having
shown that General S--- and General P---  do  not  support  his  recommended
changes, AFPC/DPPP now says  that  because  the  raters  don’t  support  the
rewrite, neither will they.  This seems to be a no win  situation  for  him.
He said that it was unrealistic to expect General  S---  and  General  P---,
whom the AFBCMR has  told  were  wrong  and  treated  him  unjustly,  to  be
interested in helping him get promoted. When AFPC/DPPP asked  him  to  prove
it, he spent six months getting the proof.  Now  DPPP  says  they  will  not
support the changes because the raters won’t, and defaults  to  chapter  and
verse as defined by the appropriate  AFIs  without  considering  the  unique
circumstances of his situation.  The whole point in his  asking  the  AFBCMR
to make these changes in the first place was that he believed  (now  proven)
that it was  impossible  for  him  to  get  two  general  officers  who  had
committed an injustice against him to side with him,  particularly  when  it
goes against the judgment of the current Chief of Staff of  the  Air  Force.
The narrative he is recommending was written by a senior rater – it  is  the
verbatim narrative  of  his  one-year-BPZ  PRF,  written  by  General  F---.
Please consider that since the  referral  OPR  has  been  removed  from  his
record, his record essentially stopped with his  previous  PRF.   Therefore,
the last senior rater to look at  his  record  with  an  unbiased  view  was
General F--- for his one-year-BPZ Board.  He  hopes  that  the  AFBCMR  will
agree with him that his recommended PRF narrative and the  “DP”  endorsement
are the appropriate ones.  If General  S---‘s  new  narrative  is  used,  he
urges the Board to add the “DP” endorsement.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  voidance  of  the
contested PRF for the CY96B board;
placing a reaccomplished  PRF  in  his  record  for  the  CY96B  board;  and
amending this reaccomplished PRF in Section IV.  In  this  regard,  we  note
the following:

            a.  The applicant requested the  letter  of  admonishment  (LOA)
and the OPR closing 7 June 1996 be removed from his records.  Based  on  the
evidence submitted with  that  appeal,  and  in  view  of  the  Air  Force’s
comments, we previously acted favorably on  the  applicant’s  requests.   In
addition, we recommended his corrected record be  considered  for  promotion
to the grade of colonel by special  selection  board  (SSB)  for  the  CY96B
board.

      b.  Based on our recommendation for SSB consideration, the  Air  Force
informed the applicant that he should appeal the PRF for the  CY  96B  board
prior to being considered for promotion by an SSB.   They  further  informed
him that they were willing  to  support  removal  of  the  last  two  bullet
statements in the narrative portion, include two of  the  bullet  statements
from his PO695B PRF in their place, and  a  “DP”  recommendation.   However,
since he wanted to completely reword the narrative portion  and  asked  that
the promotion recommendation be changed to a “DP.”, they could  not  support
his request without  evaluator  support.   The  applicant  was  subsequently
unable to obtain evaluator support for  completely  rewording  his  PRF  and
awarding him a “DP.”  He was, however,  able  to  obtain  support  for  some
minor changes to the narrative portion  of  the  PRF  and  the  award  of  a
“Promote” recommendation.

      c.  Applicant now contends that this reaccomplished PRF still  is  not
an accurate assessment of his overall record and will be detrimental to  his
chance for promotion when considered by the SSB.  After reviewing  the  PRFs
prepared for the CY94A and CY95B below-the-promotion zone boards,  we  agree
with the applicant that the reaccomplished  PRF  does  not  reflect  a  true
picture  of  his  career.   Therefore,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the
reaccomplished PRF (with the promote recommendation)  should  be  placed  in
his record for the CY96B board and amended in  Section  IV  to  reflect  the
comments from the PRF issued for the CY95B board with the exception  of  the
last sentence.  In our view, the comments in the 1995 PRF  were  a  complete
and accurate description of his career.  Since the LOA  and  OPR  closing  7
June 1996 have been removed from his record, we  do  not  believe  that  the
comments in Section IV of the reaccomplished PRF are justified.

      d.  In addition to the above  corrections  to  his  records,  we  also
believe his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for  the  CY96B  board  should  be
amended by adding the duty title “Chief, Strategy Branch,” effective 8  June
1996, and deleting the duty title  “Action  Officer,”  effective  13  August
1996.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of a probable  error  or  an  injustice  warranting  awarding  the
applicant a promotion recommendation  of  “DP”  on  the  reaccomplished  PRF
signed by the senior rater.   True,  he  submitted  sufficient  evidence  to
support changes in the verbiage to this PRF to more accurately  reflect  his
record and promotion potential.  However, in the  absence  of  support  from
the senior rater and the MLR Board President, we do  not  find  an  adequate
basis to recommend favorable action on his request for award of a “DP.”

5.  In arriving at our decision, we note  the  allegation  that  the  senior
rater told the applicant on 16 August 1997, that  he  was  directed  by  the
Chief of Staff to ensure that he did  not  get  promoted;  and  that  it  is
unrealistic to expect the senior rater to side with  him against the  Chief.
 The applicant  made  a  conscious  decision  to  base  his  request  for  a
completely rewritten PRF with a promotion  recommendation  of  “DP”  on  the
anticipated support of his evaluators.  Having  been  unsuccessful  in  that
endeavor, he now wants us to summarily dismiss  the  evaluators’  statements
and accept his speculative argument that since the USAFE Commander  (who  is
now Chief of Staff of the Air Force) made the decisions, it is  unreasonable
to assume that there would be any support at the MAJCOM level in  USAFE  for
fixing his PRF.  This could very well be  the  case.   Nonetheless,  in  the
absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, we presume  the  evaluators
acted  lawfully  and  in  good  faith.   Therefore,  we  conclude  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence  of
either  an  error  or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable  action  on  his
additional  requests  for  a  completely  rewritten  PRF  with  a  promotion
recommendation of “DP.”  As an  aside,  we  also  note  that  the  applicant
admitted earlier that he would have had to compete for  the  only  “DP”  his
senior rater had to give.  And,  if  unsuccessful,  he  would  have  had  to
compete at a higher level for a carryover “DP”  recommendation.   Therefore,
there is no guarantee that he would have ultimately  received  a  “DP”  even
had he not received the LOA and the mediocre OPR.

6.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of a probable error or an injustice  warranting  favorable  action
on the applicant’s request for a waiver of two years of the three-year time-
in-grade requirement to retire as a colonel should  he  be  selected  by  an
SSB.  In this respect, we note that the Comptroller General  has  held  that
we lack the authority  to  provide  for  a  prospective  event.   Therefore,
favorable action on this issue at this time would  be  of  dubious  validity
and, therefore, is not ripe for consideration.

7.    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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, for  cycle
0696B, be removed from his record.

      b.    The attached reaccomplished PRF, AF Form 709,  for  cycle  0696B
be inserted in his record.

      c.    The reaccomplished PRF for cycle 0696B, be corrected in  Section
IV. Promotion Recommendation as follows:

Outstanding  officer  whose  strongest  quality  is   leadership;   superior
performer in many diverse assignments Great start in ATC; named “top IP”  by
students/”IP of the Month”  by  unit;  SOS  Distinguished  GraduateUnmatched
aviation  skills;  top  graduate  in  Pilot   Instructor   Training   class;
instructor pilot in T-38/F-15
Excellent Flight Safety Officer; thorough  mishap  investigations;  authored
changes to F-15  flight  manual  Brilliant  tactician  in  PACAF;  exploited
missile envelopes, solved serious  radar/missile  interface  problem  Superb
joint duty  performance;  Air/Land  Battle  Doctrine  expert;  best  liaison
officer  for  Army  at  Ft  Hood  Superior  leadership  at  Kadena;  mission
commander, wing staff division chief, assistant operations officer #1 of  my
5 squadron commanders at Tyndall; tremendous customer support with 35  year-
old aircraft “Jaws” G--- has been a leader at every level - we need him  for
our toughest jobs - promote without fail.

      d.    The officer selection brief  for  the  CY96B  Colonel  Selection
Board be corrected  to  reflect  in  the  Assignment  History,  duty  title,
effective 8 June 1996, “Chief, Strategy Branch” and delete  the  duty  title
entry “Action Officer,” effective 13 August 1996.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 9 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Member
            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
            Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

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

   Exhibit A.  Applicant’s letter, dated 27 Apr 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 1 Jun 98.
   Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Jan 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 5 Feb 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 4 Jun 98, 22 Jun 98, and
               12 Feb 99.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant's Response, dated 27 Feb 99.





                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 97-02628




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 Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, for
cycle 0696B, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his record.

            b.   The attached reaccomplished PRF, AF Form 709, for cycle
0696B be inserted in his record.

            c.   The reaccomplished PRF for cycle 0696B, be corrected in
Section IV. Promotion Recommendation, as follows:

Outstanding officer whose strongest quality is leadership; superior
performer in many diverse assignments
Great start in ATC; named “top IP” by students/”IP of the Month” by unit;
SOS Distinguished Graduate
Unmatched aviation skills; top graduate in Pilot Instructor Training
class; instructor pilot in T-38/F-15
Excellent Flight Safety Officer; thorough mishap investigations; authored
changes to F-15 flight manual
Brilliant tactician in PACAF; exploited missile envelopes, solved serious
radar/missile interface problem
Superb joint duty performance; Air/Land Battle Doctrine expert; best
liaison officer for Army at Ft Hood
Superior leadership at Kadena; mission commander, wing staff division
chief, assistant operations officer
#1 of my 5 squadron commanders at  Tyndall;  tremendous  customer  support
with 35 year-old aircraft
“Jaws” G--- has been a leader at every level - we need him for our
toughest jobs - promote without fail

            d.   The officer selection brief for the CY96B Colonel
Selection Board be corrected to reflect in the Assignment History, duty
title, effective 8 June 1996, “Chief, Strategy Branch” and delete the duty
title entry “Action Officer,” effective 13 August 1996.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency