RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01771
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations be added to his  20
Feb 94 and 20 Feb 95  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs),  and  he  be
considered for promotion to major by a Special Selection Board (SSB)  for
the CY98B Promotion Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His request is based on the results of a previous appeal to  correct  two
subsequent OPRs through 30 Sep 95 and 30 Sep 96.   He  has  attempted  to
correct these OPRs through the Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board  (ERAB).
His first attempt was denied on 4 Oct 99.  He resubmitted the package and
it was returned on 10 Mar 00 without action.

In support of his request, applicant submits  personal  statements  by  a
majority of his evaluators  of  the  contested  reports,  and  additional
documents associated with the issues cited in  his  contentions  (Exhibit
A).

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information  extracted  from  Master   Personnel   Records   reveal   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  major,  with
an effective date of rank of 1 Aug 99.

On 6 Nov 98 and  27  Jan  99,  similar  appeals  by  the  applicant  were
considered by the  Evaluation  Report  Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  under  the
provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401.   The  ERAB  partially
approved the applicant's appeal regarding an 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.

On 13 Jul 99, the applicant appealed  to  the  Board  to  have  his  OPRs
closing 30 Sep 95 and 30 Sep 96 amended to  include  recommendations  for
PME and that he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection  Board
(SSB).  The Board considered the case and the majority of the panel found
insufficient  evidence  of  error  or  injustice  and   recommended   the
application be denied.  The Director, Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency,
reviewed the case and  made  the  decision  to  correct  the  applicant's
records.   The   applicant's   OPRs   were   amended   to   include   PME
recommendations and it was directed that the applicant be considered  for
promotion to the grade of major by an SSB for the CY98B Central Selection
Board.  (Record of Proceedings and Directive are at Exhibit C.)

On 4 Oct 99 and 10 Mar 00, the applicant appealed to the ERAB to have his
OPRs closing 20 Feb 94 and 20 Feb 95 amended to  include  recommendations
for PME.  The ERAB denied his appeals.

On 15 May 00, based on the corrections to the OPRs granted as a result of
the decision in his earlier  appeal  to  the  Board,  the  applicant  was
considered for retroactive promotion to the grade of major by  the  CY98B
(6 Apr 98) major SSB and was nonselected by the SSB.

The applicant was promoted to the grade of major by the  CY99A  promotion
board with an effective date of rank of 1 Aug 99.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Acting Chief,  AFBCMR  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial.  DPPPA stated the contested OPRs have
been a matter of record for over five  years.   DPPPA  asserts  that  the
evaluators do not indicate they now have information not  available  when
the report was rendered which substantiates the applicant  was  dealt  an
injustice.   DPPPA  believes  the  rater's  statements   are   purely   a
retrospective  attempt  only  to  enhance   the   applicant's   promotion
opportunities, which is not a  valid  reason  to  correct  an  evaluation
report.  DPPPA stated the  statements  from  the  additional  raters  and
reviewer are nothing more than endorsements of the rater's  statement  of
support and neither add validity to the applicant's appeal (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant believes he has provided evidence that supports the  timeliness
and merit of his application.  Applicant  asserts  the  approval  of  his
appeal should be fitting based on  the  previous  decision  made  by  the
Director of the Air Force Review Board Agency.

His 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.  We are not  persuaded  by  the
applicant’s rationale.  With regards to Professional  Military  Education
(PME) recommendations, the Board is aware that the  governing  Air  Force
instruction stipulates PME recommendations are not obligatory.   We  took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging  the  merits  of
the case and agree with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility 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.

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 involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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 November 9, 2000, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
      Mr. Clarence Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 00 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR Docket No: 00-01771
                w/atchs, dated 1 Dec 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Jul 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jul 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Aug 00.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair