RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01060
                       INDEX CODE: 131.01

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF  Form  709,  for  Calendar
Year 1989A (CY89A) be declared void and  replaced  with  the  reaccomplished
PRF.

2.    The reaccomplished PRF be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote” (DP).

3.    He be promoted to the grade of major.

4.    If not promoted by the AFBCMR, that he be considered for promotion  to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for  the  CY89A  Major
Selection Board.

5.    His date of rank (DOR) and effective date  be  retroactive  as  though
selected by the original board.

6.    That his record be corrected to reflect that he did  not  separate  on
25 June 1990, but continued on active duty as a major.

7.    That he be reinstated to active duty.

8.    He be allowed four years on active duty as a major to build  a  record
before he  is  considered  for  promotion  in-the-promotion-zone  (IPZ)  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was a change in senior leadership positions in  the  7274th  Air  Base
Group when his PRF for the CY89A  board  was  being  prepared.   His  rating
official and Vice Commander of the  Air  Base  Group,  LTC  S---,  had  just
arrived.  His senior rater, and commander of the 7274th  ABG,  Colonel  P---
had recently assumed command.  Because of this changeover,  and  facts  both
his rater
and senior rater did not know, his PRF  was  incomplete.   Colonel  P---,  a
voting member of the Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB), was not  able
to represent him at the MLEB because he was  unaware  of  his  (applicant’s)
most significant career achievements.  His last Officer  Performance  Report
closed  out  31 March  1989,  six  months  before  the  PRF  was   prepared.
Therefore,  his  achievements  for  the  last  six  months  and   the   most
significant ones  in  his  entire  Air  Force  career  were  not  documented
anywhere in his Record of Performance (ROP) reviewed by the rater, LTC  S---
, and the senior rater, Colonel P---, when they prepared his PRF.  The  fact
that both had just arrived made the void in his record after  the  31  March
1989 OPR closed out even more  significant,  because  they  had  no  way  of
knowing about his most recent achievements.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  a  statement  from  the  senior
rater stating that  had  he  been  able  to  award  a  “Definitely  Promote”
recommendation, he would have unquestionably given  that  recommendation  to
the applicant.  Since he had to compete at the 3rd  Air  Force  MLEB  for  a
“DP” quota for the  applicant,  he  did  not  have  this  option.   Had  the
applicant’s outstanding achievements been correctly documented  in  the  PRF
and had he been fully aware of them, he would have been able to get  a  “DP”
awarded by the MLEB.  There is no doubt that had  the  missing  achievements
been included in the applicant’s record, the MLEB would  have  concurred  in
the  award  of  a  “DP.”   The  “Excellent”  rating  would  have  been   the
significant  deciding  factor.   Clearly,  the  applicant  would  have  been
awarded a “DP” and selected by the central Air Force  board  for  promotion,
had it not been for the omission in  his  record.   He  strongly  recommends
applicant be awarded a “DP”.

Applicant also submits a reaccomplished PRF.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 March 1977, applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in  the  grade
of airman basic.  On 23 October 1978, he was honorably discharged to  accept
commission in the Air Force.

On 24 October 1978, applicant was commissioned a second  lieutenant,  United
States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), and entered extended active duty (EAD).

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the CY88 and CY89A Selection Boards.

On 25 June 1990, applicant was released from active duty and transferred  to
the USAFR in the grade of captain under  AFR  36-12,  Invol  Release:  Twice
Failed Permanent Promotion.  He received $30,000 in severance pay.

On 30 November 1990, applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air  Force  in  the
grade of staff sergeant.  He remained in the USAFR as a  captain,  obtaining
dual status.

On 30 April 1995,  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  in  the  grade  of
technical sergeant and retired effective 1 May 1995 in the grade of  captain
under AFI 36-3208, Temporary Early Retirement Authority.

OER/OPR profile since 1990, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       31 Mar 86                   1-1-1
                       31 Mar 87                   1-1-1
                     # 31 Mar 88                   1-1-1
                     ##      31 Mar 89             Meets Standards
                       31 Mar 90             Meets Standards

# Top report at time of CY88 board.
## Top report at time of CY89A board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Mgt, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed the application and states  that  per  AFR  36-10,
Chapter 4, the senior rater had the opportunity to receive  suggestions  and
may have considered other information (i.e., not documented yet in  an  OPR)
to assist him/her in the PRF  preparation.   Even  if  information  was  not
documented in an OPR at the time of the PRF preparation in  September  1989,
the information  was  available  through  the  applicant’s  local  chain  of
command.  However, AFR 36-10 does not require a  senior  rater  to  use  any
information not contained in an officer’s ROP.   The  applicant  provides  a
letter from his senior rater dated four years after the  1989  Major  Board.
This letter,  though  it  provides  support  for  the  applicant,  is  based
strictly on hindsight.  In 1989, the applicant’s senior rater was tasked  to
write a PRF with  information  available  at  the  time.   It  is  a  common
practice for officers to provide input  at  the  time  of  PRF  preparation.
Because of his non-selection the year  before,  the  applicant  should  have
been exceptionally aware of the importance of the PRF and should have  taken
the opportunity then to address  the  content  of  his  PRF.   Also,  it  is
inappropriate to consider the senior rater’s statement that  if  he  had  an
outright “DP” to give, he would have given it to the  applicant.   In  order
to be entitled to an outright “DP”, the senior rater would  have  had  three
more IPZ  eligibles  and  it’s  possible  one  of  them  would  have  had  a
performance record better than the applicant’s (who was competing above-the-
promotion zone (APZ)).  A PRF is considered to be an accurate assessment  of
an officer’s performance and performance based potential at the time  it  is
written.  At the time it was rendered, the  applicant  had  two  options  to
have the PRF corrected prior to the 1989 Major Board.  First, he could  have
approached his senior rater and requested a change.  Second, if the  officer
believed it was not a fair assessment of his record, he could  have  written
the Board President.  In order to re-write  Section  IV  of  a  PRF  and  to
upgrade a PRF rating, there needs to be a  demonstrated  material  error  in
the PRF or in how the PRF was prepared.  The applicant has shown neither  to
have existed at the time  his  CY89A  PRF  was  prepared.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

The Acting Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, Directorate  of  Pers  Program  Mgt,
AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that obvious by its  absence
is a statement from the MLEB President.  Even though the applicant  has  the
support of the senior rater, it is imperative to also  hear  from  the  MLEB
president since this individual would be the one to decide  whether  or  not
the applicant is deserving of  a  “DP”  recommendation  APZ.   In  order  to
successfully  challenge  the  validity  of  an  evaluation  report,  it   is
important to hear from all of the evaluators – not necessarily for  support,
but at least for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has not  provided
all of the required documentation.  Without benefit of  this  documentation,
they can only  conclude  the  PRF  is  accurate  as  written.   Insufficient
relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of
probable error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s request for  direct
promotion  to  the  grade  of  major.   An  officer  may  be  qualified  for
promotion, but,  in  the  judgment  of  a  selection  board  –  vested  with
discretionary authority to make the selections – he  may  not  be  the  best
qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion  vacancies.
 Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been a selectee  by  the
CY89A Board, they believe a duly constituted  board  applying  the  complete
promotion criteria is in the  most  advantageous  position  to  render  this
vital determination.  The  board’s  prerogative  to  do  so  should  not  be
usurped except under  extraordinary  circumstances.   Further,  to  grant  a
direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers  who  have  extremely
competitive records and also did not  get  promoted.   Other  than  his  own
opinions the applicant has provided no substantiation  to  his  allegations.
The burden of proof is on him.  They do not support direct promotion.   They
recommend the applicant’s requests be denied.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  has  provided  detailed
comments.  In addition he states that all senior officers in  his  chain  of
command beginning two years before and when the errors in the  PRF  occurred
have given their absolute support for correcting  these  critical  omissions
and mistakes.  After providing a  full  explanation  for  why  they  support
correcting his record, they all strongly recommend  the  PRF  be  corrected.
Additionally, the statements from those senior  officers  provide  facts  to
disprove every reason  the  AFPC  officials  have  used  in  their  advisory
opinions.  His senior rater, Colonel P---, who  wrote  the  PRF,  sat  as  a
voting member of the MLEB.  He has the most direct and first-hand  knowledge
of why the errors occurred, and has provided absolute  support  in  his  two
statements.  Lt General A---, the MLEB President who approved the  PRFs  for
the MLEB, reviewed all the facts and is clear on his intent – he approves  a
“DP.”  The other senior officers in his  chain  of  command  and  in  senior
staff positions totally and unequivocally support his case.

In support of his appeal,  applicant  submits  another  statement  from  the
senior rater stating that there was no “hindsight” at all  in  his  decision
to correct the PRF,  nor  is  he  attempting  to  “recreate  history.”   The
correction he made was based on facts he was not aware  of  when  he  signed
the original PRF.  He did not correct the PRF just to  make  it  more  “hard
hitting” or to “provide embellishments”; the new PRF  includes  substantial,
original, and vitally relevant information.  He has attached a copy  of  the
corrected PRF with the new added achievements highlighted;  almost  half  of
the facts in section  IV  are  new  and  the  new  facts  include  the  most
significant  achievements  of  the  applicant’s  career.   His  decision  to
correct the report was  based  on  fact,  careful  review  of  all  relevant
documents, and his vivid memory of what had happened.

Applicant also submits a statement from  the  MLEB  President  stating  that
based on his review of all the  facts,  the  applicant’s  strong  record  of
performance, the deficient PRF, Colonel P---’s comprehensive statement,  and
his recollection of the records of others who met the MLEB –  he  knows  the
applicant  met  the  MLEB  at  a  distinct  disadvantage.   His  record   as
originally presented was highly competitive.  However, the increase  in  the
strength of his record as a result of the corrected PRF prepared by  Colonel
P---,  and  the  knowledge  Colonel  P---  now  has   of   the   applicant’s
achievements, would  have  resulted  in  a  stronger  and  more  competitive
record.  He has no doubt that if the MLEB members  had  been  aware  of  his
significant  achievements  which  were  not  documented  in  his  PRF,   the
applicant would have competed effectively for a  “DP”  from  the  MLEB.   He
recommends that the corrected PRF prepared by Colonel P--- be
entered  into  the  applicant’s  record.   This  is  a  correction   clearly
supported  by  the  facts  and  will  eliminate  a  serious  error  in   the
applicant’s record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.    The application was not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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.   After  reviewing  the  evidence
submitted with this appeal, we are not  persuaded  that  the  contested  PRF
should be voided and replaced  with  a  reaccomplished  PRF.   Although  the
applicant  has  submitted  statements  from  the  senior  rater   and   MLEB
President, these statements, in our opinion, do not  substantiate  that  the
PRF rendered in 1989 was in error or unjust.  As noted by the Air Force,  if
more information on the applicant’s performance  was  required,  the  senior
rater had the option  of  obtaining  this  information  through  applicant’s
chain of command.  Also, it must be noted that it has been over eight  years
since the PRF was rendered.  While we are not questioning the  integrity  of
these senior Air Force officers, we believe that with the passage  of  time,
memories can fade, and we are not persuaded that the PRF in  qustion  is  in
error or unjust.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence  of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no 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 19 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
      Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Apr 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 May 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 13 May 98.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 May 98.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 21 Apr 99, w/atchs.





                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Panel Chair