RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01837
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  effective  and
with a Date of Rank as if  selected  by  the  Calendar  Year  1997C
(CY97C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There were 26 violations of Air Force policy that caused him not to
receive fair and equitable consideration for promotion, resulted in
improper supervision,  and  created  a  situation  where  his  only
opportunity for promotion is direct promotion by the AFBCMR.

His senior rater and others in leadership roles failed to remedy or
support  efforts  to  correct  errors  in  his  records  and  other
continued irregularities.

His records are tarnished because of lack of feedback,  the  stigma
of being passed over for promotion, and diminished responsibilities
due to reprisals against him.

He  was  denied   reconsideration   for   an   upgraded   promotion
recommendation by the Management Level Review (MLR)  president  for
his missing OPR  while  another  major  was  provided  an  upgraded
recommendation for a less significant error.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFCSD) is 15  November
1981.   He  was  considered  and  not  selected  for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C,  CY98B,  CY99A,
and CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Boards.  The  applicant  was
also granted promotion consideration and not  selected  by  Special
Selection Board for the  CY97C  board  by  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) after corrections were  approved  for  his  OPR
that originally closed out 5 Aug 97.

A profile of  the  applicant’s  last  ten  OPRs  indicates  overall
ratings of “meets Standards.”

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Evaluations  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,   evaluated   this
application and recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request  for
immediate promotion.  Since  the  applicant  did  not  provide  any
corrected OPRs and PRFs, they cannot recommend SSB consideration in
lieu of immediate promotion.

The applicant contends he did not  get  fair  consideration  for  a
“Definitely Promote” (DP) at  the  MLR  for  the  CY97C  Lieutenant
Colonel Promotion Board.  In his original appeal to the  ERAB,  the
applicant contended that his report was not prepared and  filed  in
his Officer Selection Record in a timely manner.  The ERAB approved
his appeal and  granted  him  an  SSB.   He  was  non-selected  for
promotion by SSB.  He still maintains that his senior rater did not
give him a strong enough push for a DP at the MLR and that the  OPR
closing out 17 Jun 97 (originally 5 Aug 97) generated by  a  Change
of Reporting Official was delayed due to rating chain mismanagement
and inattentiveness.  He maintains this delay pushed the close  out
date back  and  prevented  the  MLR  from  considering  his  latest
accomplishments.  The applicant contends that this chain of  events
and his nonselection for lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY97C  board
created a domino effect for his future  promotion  opportunity  and
continued to have a negative effect on subsequent OPRs and PRFs and
promotion boards.

Results of an Inspector General (IG)  complaint  by  the  applicant
concluded there were systematic irregularities  in  the  management
and oversight of officer  performance  reports  at  DISA,  however,
evidence  did  not  exist  that  those  irregularities  constituted
misconduct on the part of officials involved.  All OPRs are working
copies until they become a matter of record.  The applicant’s claim
that lack of feedback possibly  negatively  impacted  his  OPRs  is
unfounded.  Lack of feedback alone does not invalidate an OPR.  The
applicant’s claim of reprisal and deliberate  lack  of  support  in
appeal action is  also  not  clearly  substantiated.   Although  he
provides testimony from a co-worker, his  claim  is  not  supported
either by official investigative findings or his rating chain.  The
applicant’s rating chain’s  non-support  of  appeal  action  is  an
individual  evaluator  option.   The  senior  rater  is  under   no
obligation to rework OPRs or PRFs based solely on the insistence of
the ratee.  The applicant is correct that he  is  not  expected  or
required to draft or write his OPR or PRF.  However, he is free  to
provide input to his  rating  chain  and  senior  rater  if  he  so
chooses.

The process for making substantial changes to a  PRF,  as  well  as
changing the PRF rating, subsequent to an MLR are set forth in  AFI
36-2401, A1.6.  Specifically, a  senior  rater  and  MLR  president
should concur that information exists  that  significantly  changes
the member’s record, and therefore the outcome of the original  MLR
decision.  With the exception of the applicant’s first appeal, this
process has not taken place.  Nor is there  any  evidence  that  it
should take place.  In the case of the first appeal, the previously
incomplete  OPR  and  the   original   PRF   (with   administrative
corrections) were considered  by  the  senior  rater  and  the  MLR
president as prescribed in the AFI and submitted  to  the  SSB  who
subsequently nonselected the applicant for promotion.

The applicant already received  SSB  consideration  for  the  CY97C
promotion board and was again not selected.  The  applicant’s  OPRs
and PRFs for the CY98B, CY99A, and CY99B lieutenant col boards  did
meet the  respective  central  board  for  consideration.   In  the
applicant’s case, his reports could have possibly met the  MLRs  if
processed sooner; however, there is no  regulatory  requirement  to
have those in his record until 60 days after the  closeout  of  the
OPR.  Although there were,  perhaps,  some  irregularities  in  the
processing  of  the  applicant’s  OPRs,  which  may  have   delayed
finalization of the reports, the applicant’s records were, with the
exception of the CY97C board complete and  accurate  as  prescribed
for fair and equitable consideration for DP allocations at the MLRs
and promotion consideration at the central boards.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, evaluated this  application
and recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request  for  a  direct
promotion.

Both Congress and the DOD have made clear their intent that  errors
ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through  the  use
of SSBs.  In the past, and hopefully in the future, the AFBCMR  has
considered  direct  promotion  only  in  the   most   extraordinary
circumstances where SSB consideration has been deemed to be totally
unworkable.  The applicant’s case clearly does not fall  into  that
category.  Other than his own opinions, the applicant has  provided
no substantiation to his allegations.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluations and disagrees with them.
 He states that several of his  allegations  were  mischaracterized
that only 5 of  his  26  specific  and  detailed  allegations  were
rebutted.

The applicant provided comments in response  to  both  evaluations.
He addressed eight points on the evaluation provided by  DPPPE  and
also addressed the central issues contained in the evaluation  done
by DPPPA.

In summary, the applicant stated that he  was  troubled  that  both
AFPC letters stated information that was clearly untrue, especially
the statement that the corrected CY97C record was considered by the
senior rater and MLR president.  The Air Force evaluations  were  a
broad brush of the evidence provided, only relying on the  argument
that MLRs do not require the same records  as  the  central  board.
This argument ignored the circumstances, senior rater’s obligation,
the spirit of complete record evaluation for the  PRF  and  at  the
MLR.  He takes issue with the statement that  his  allegations  are
only supported by his own opinions and finds this clearly  contrary
to the over 59 attachments, statements,  and  two  IG  findings  he
provided.

AFPC concluded that bad timed OPRs  and  absence  of  feedback,  in
themselves does not invalidate an OPR.  This comment seems to imply
that if other factors were also present it would  invalidate  OPRs.
Significant other factors are present.  In his case, the  applicant
states that every substantial part of the Officer Evaluation System
was broken, compromised, or degraded.  The system  was  flawed  and
errors, mistiming, and violations continued  permanently  degrading
his records over four consecutive boards.

The applicant states that not many of his allegations were refuted.
 Errors occurred and his  promotion  opportunities  were  degraded.
Records were wrong or missing at critical times.     The  applicant
states that he was not  provided  the  promotion  opportunities  as
prescribed by regulations.

The 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.  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 offices 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.   While
the Board notes that the IG found problems in  the  management  and
oversight of OPRs at DISA, the IG also noted that it did  not  find
any evidence of misconduct by the officials involved.  The Board is
not persuaded  that  the  circumstances  of  the  applicant’s  case
justify a direct promotion.  While we understand that the applicant
believes the key factor in his case is that he was not  given  fair
consideration for a “DP” promotion recommendation, we find no basis
to challenge his senior rater’s decision not to  support  him.   No
evidence has been presented showing that he did  not  receive  fair
consideration.  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  issues  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 1 November 2000, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Aug 00.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 29 Aug 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Sep 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 00, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair