RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00527
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration  by
the Calendar  Year  1996A  (CY96A)  Major  Board,  which  convened  on
4 Mar 96, be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF  containing
an Overall Recommendation of "Definitely Promote."

He be given Special Selection Board consideration for promotion by the
CY96A Major Board.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to numerous changes in his record of performance,  the  Management
Level  Review  (MLR)  President  had   insufficient   and   incomplete
information concerning his career accomplishments  and  potential  for
future leadership  performance  at  the  time  the  original  PRF  was
awarded.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  his  expanded
comments, copies of the contested and  reaccomplished  PRFs,  and  his
appeals submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, which  included
supporting statements from the MLR president and senior rater.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Oct 97.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1989 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      28 Sep 89  Meets Standards
      10 Jul 90  Meets Standards
      10 Jul 91  Meets Standards
      10 Jul 92  Meets Standards
      23 May 93  Meets Standards
      23 May 94  Meets Standards
      23 May 95  Meets Standards
       6 Sep 96  Meets Standards
  #  28 Feb 97   Meets Standards
       5 May 98  Meets Standards

# Top Report in file when considered and selected for promotion by the
CY97C Major Board, which convened on 16 Jun 97.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Evaluation and  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed  this
application  and  recommended  denial.    According   to   DPPP,   the
applicant’s  case  has  had  an  original  consideration,  plus  three
reconsiderations by different Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
members.   None  of  the  members  found  the   applicant’s   evidence
convincing enough to overturn the previous  ERABs’  decisions.   Since
the applicant has provided no new evidence, DPPP indicated  that  they
have no basis to recommend approval.  A PRF is considered to represent
the rating chain's best judgment at the time  it  is  rendered.   They
contend that once a PRF is accepted for file, only strong evidence  to
the contrary warrants its correction, especially upgrading the overall
promotion recommendation.  The burden of proof is  on  the  applicant.
The appeals process does not exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance
chances for promotion.  It appears to DPPP that this is  exactly  what
the applicant is attempting to do--recreate history.   As  such,  they
are not convinced the contested PRF is not accurate as written and  do
not support the request for removal and replacement.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that the central consideration in this  appeal  is
whether  the  many  approved  official  changes  to  his  records,  as
documented by himself and the MLR President, is  sufficient  to  allow
the  promotion  recommendation  to  be  raised   from   “Promote”   to
“Definitely Promote.”  The Senior Rater and MLR President contend that
it is definitely sufficient, and they are the ones  that  should  know
upon what factors and standards they based their original decisions.

Applicant’s complete response is 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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, including the  statements
from  the  senior  rater  and  MLR  president,  and  his   contentions
concerning the contested PRF were duly noted.  However, we do not find
the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in  support
of his  appeal  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility  concerning
this issue.  Applicant asserts that due to the numerous changes in his
record  of  performance,  the  MLR  president  had  insufficient   and
incomplete  information  concerning  his  career  accomplishments  and
potential for future leadership performance at the time  the  original
PRF was awarded.  However, the comments from the senior rater and  MLR
president have not shown  to  our  satisfaction  that,  based  on  the
changes to his record, the applicant would have definitely received  a
“DP” over the other individuals who  competed  for  and  were  awarded
“DPs.”   It  is  our  opinion  that  the  statements  represent  their
retrospective   judgments   of   the   applicant’s   performance   and
demonstrated potential which do not provide an  appropriate  basis  to
find that the  contested  PRF  was  an  inaccurate  depiction  of  the
applicant’s promotion potential at the time it was prepared.  In  view
of the above, and  in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  to  the
contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale and conclude that no  basis
exists 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 29 Mar 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Mr. Clarence D. Long II, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Feb 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 9 Aug 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Aug 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 1 Sep 99.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair