RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00969 (Case 2)
                 INDEX CODE:  131.01

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Performance Report  (OPR),  rendered  for  the  period
27 May 93 through 26 May 94, be corrected  by  adding  an  acquisition
review to Section VIII (Reviewer).

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)  for  the  CY94A  (P0494A)
Major Board, which convened on 22 Aug  94,  be  corrected  to  show  a
recommendation of “Definitely Promote” (DP).

3.  He be considered for promotion to major  by  a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the CY94A (22 Aug 94) Major Selection Board  (P0494A),
with his corrected record.

4.  If selected for promotion to major, he would like to be reinstated
to active duty.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The results of a unit Inspector General  (IG)  investigation  in  1994
revealed his 26 May 94 OPR should be corrected.  His  P0494A  PRF  and
P0495A PRFs were virtually identical.  The P0495A PRF contained  a  DP
recommendation.  Because of the similarity between the two  PRFs,  the
P0494A PRF should reflect a DP recommendation as well.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement with
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   his
contentions (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) as
1 July 1983.  While serving on active duty, he  was  promoted  to  the
grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank  of  1  July
1987.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last 6 reporting periods follows:


            Period Ending    Evaluation

               26 May 89     Meets Standards (MS)
               26 May 90          MS
               26 May 91          MS
               26 May 92          MS
               26 May 93          MS
             * 26 May 94          MS

*  Contested OPR

On 18 November 1994, the applicant was released from  active  duty  in
the grade of captain and transferred to the Air  Force  Reserve  under
the  provisions  of  AFR  36-12  (Resign:   Early  Release   Program -
Voluntary Separation Incentive).  He  had  completed  a  total  of  11
years, 7 months and 15 days of active duty  service.   On  19 November
1994, the applicant was assigned to the Nonobligated  Nonparticipating
Ready Reserve Section.  He was promoted to the grade of major, Reserve
of the Air Force, with the effective date  of  1  July  1997.   On  19
November 1997, the applicant was assigned to the Inactive Status  List
Reserve Section (ISLRS).

On 9 Jul  98,  the  AFBCMR  considered  and  recommended  approval  of
applicant's request for reinstatement to active duty, an  AF  Form  77
(Supplemental Evaluation Sheet) be inserted in his  record  indicating
no performance report is available for the period he was  not  serving
on active duty, and reconsideration for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by an SSB for CY94A and CY95A Major Selection Boards.  A copy of
the ROP is at Exhibit C.  Inasmuch as  the  applicant  was  not  being
reinstated to active duty in the grade of major  (promoted  to  major,
Reserve of the Air Force on 1 Jul 97), he  declined  reinstatement  to
active duty in the grade of RegAF captain and  SSB  consideration  for
the CY95A Major Board.  He was, however,  considered  and  nonselected
for promotion to major by the 11 Jan 99 SSB for the CY94A (22 Aug  94)
Major Board (P0494A).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, stated that the purpose
of the acquisition review is to ensure that all acquisition  workforce
personnel  evaluations  include  acquisition  related  considerations.
Acquisition reviewers are not allowed to place comments on  OPRs,  but
can attach an Air Force Form 77, if desired for clarification.  It  is
DPPE’s experience that very few reviews result in additional comments.
 Since  the  OPR  is  a  matter  of  record,  it  is  the  applicant’s
responsibility to contact  the  individual  who  was  the  acquisition
examiner on the OPR in question.  Inasmuch  as  the  IG  rendered  its
opinion on  this  issue  in  Nov  94,  the  applicant  has  had  ample
opportunity and time to file an appeal for the OPR  in  question,  but
failed to do so.  Barring the acquisition review creating  substantial
change in the OPR,  it  is  DPPPE’s  opinion  that  this  is  a  minor
correction and should not be the basis for  allowing  an  SSB.   DPPPE
recommended the applicant’s requests be denied (Exhibit D).



The Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed  this  application
and  recommended  denial.   DPPPA  accepts  the  findings   of   DPPPE
concerning the contested OPR.

DPPPA provided the following additional information for  consideration
by the Board.  Subsequent to the applicant’s 18 Nov 94 separation,  he
appealed to the AFBCMR to be returned to active duty and  his  request
was granted on 15 Sep 98.  The  applicant  never  returned  to  active
duty.  He elected not to return since it was his belief that,  in  the
event of his nonselection by the SSBs, he would have had to once again
separate from active duty six months following  approval  of  the  SSB
proceedings.   This  is  a  valid  statement.   Since  he  was   never
reinstated on active duty, the AFBCMR rendered a  Corrected  Directive
voiding  the  previous  Directive.   However,   in   researching   the
applicant’s current appeal, DPPPA discovered that the applicant should
never have been eligible for  the  P0494A  board.   According  to  the
eligibility criteria for that board, officers must have had a date  of
separation  (DOS)  of  20  Nov  94  or  later  to  be   eligible   for
consideration.  The applicant separated from active duty on 18 Nov  94
and was never reinstated to active duty as directed.  If  he  had,  he
would have been eligible for consideration by the P0494A  board.   The
applicant has never been eligible for the P0494A board.  He is neither
eligible for the P0494A board nor  the  P0495A  board  at  this  time.
Therefore, the appeal regarding the P0494A PRF is  without  merit.   A
complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that, as an
acquisition officer who has worked on many  large  USAF  programs,  he
agrees with HQ AFPC/DPPPA that this review usually does not result  in
significant changes.   However,  the  record  shows  that  the  senior
officers who investigated the matter at the time did think  that  this
was a significant omission.  The unit Inspector General (IG) felt that
the circumstances were so egregious that not only should  the  OPR  be
corrected, but that his separation be reversed as well.  In  addition,
his senior rater gave him a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation  on
his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  CY95A  majors  board.
For the original majors board in  94,  he  was  given  a  Promote  (P)
recommendation.  These two PRFs were based  upon  records  which  were
identical, with one exception: the results of  the  IG  investigation.
He received the IG findings on 14 Nov 94 and submitted an appeal under
AFR 36-2401 on 18 Nov 94.  His appeal was returned without action on 2
Dec 94.  He continued to pursue this issue  through  the  HQ  USAF  IG
system and was informed on 15 Jan 98 that  he  should  appeal  to  the
AFBCMR.  Since he never met the original major board  in  Aug  94,  he
assumed that new PRFs would be generated by his  rater  at  the  time.
The selection board allowed his rater to generate a new  PRF  for  the
CY95 board, but inexplicably, used the old, invalid PRF  generated  in
94 for the 99 SSB.  Evidently, even though he never met the 94  board,
a PRF was still included as part of his official records.  He received
copies of his PRFs only three days before the 11 Jan 99 SSB, making it
impossible to get them corrected before the selection board met.

Since the AFBCMR Directive returning him to active  duty  was  voided,
the Jan 99 SSB never existed.  The decision to void this Directive was
based on the assumption that he received a fair and honest chance  for
promotion at the 11 Jan 99 SSB.  Due to deficiencies  in  his  record,
this did not occur.  His original intent was to appeal the results  of
the 11 Jan 99  SSB,  not  the  original  CY94  majors  board.   In  HQ
AFPC/DPPPA’s advisory, they indicated that he was never  eligible  for
the P0494A major board based on his separation date.  If so,  his  PRF
should never have been a part of the official record, which  would  of
course invalidate the results of the 11 Jan 99 SSB.   The  CY94  board
convened on 22 Aug 94 and his separation was approved on  24  Aug  94,
two days after the promotion board convened.  Thus, according to  MPEL
94-19, he was indeed eligible for the CY94 majors board.   This  would
explain why his PRF was  on  record.   If  he  was  eligible  for  the
original 94 board, then he deserves SSB consideration because  he  was
never allowed to meet this board.  If ineligible  for  the  94  board,
then the PRF used for the 11 Jan 99 SSB was invalid.  Either  way,  he
should be given SSB consideration.

Based upon the evidence submitted, he believes the  AFBCMR  Directive,
dated 15 Sep 98, should be reinstated, his records  corrected  and  he
receive SSB consideration for promotion to major.  A complete copy  of
this response is appended at Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request that the contested report be  examined
by an Acquisition Examiner and the results of the review forwarded  to
the Board, The Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, stated that,
after an extensive search,  they  were  unable  to  find  a  qualified
Acquisition Examiner at the National Security Agency (NSA) to  do  the
review.  It was therefore determined,  through  the  management  level
(ML), that HQ  AIA  would  provide  the  Acquisition  Examination.   A
complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  has
located the correct NSA point of contact  (Major  Ken  M---)  for  the
acquisition review.  He believes it would be more appropriate  to  use
an Acquisition Examiner from NSA.  The purpose of the Acquisition exam
is not to determine whether or not he was  qualified  for  Acquisition
Certification.  The results of  the  IG  investigation,  performed  in
1994, determined that he was in an acquisition billet  and  that  this
review should have been performed on his OPR.  As such, the statements
about his qualifications for Acquisition Certification are irrelevant,
and should be deleted.  A complete copy of this response  is  appended
at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The following rationale for
the Board’s decision is provided:

      a.  After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the  evidence
of record, the  Board  majority  is  persuaded  that  the  applicant’s
acquisition officer status should have been reflected on the contested
Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR).   It  was  noted  that  the  Unit
Inspector General (IG) investigation concluded  that  the  applicant’s
acquisition officer status on the contested OPR was not updated  in  a
timely manner.  In this respect, the Unit IG supports the  applicant’s
request  to  have  the  contested  OPR  corrected.   Inasmuch  as  the
contested OPR was in the applicant’s officer selection  record  (OSR),
without the updated acquisition review, when  he  was  considered  for
promotion by the CY94A Major Selection Board, the Board majority is of
the opinion that the CY94A selection board was denied the  opportunity
to review  the  applicant’s  complete  record.   While  it  cannot  be
conclusively determined whether or not the absence of the  acquisition
review was the reason for applicant’s nonselection  for  promotion  by
the board in question, the Board majority believes that  its  omission
served to  deprive  him  of  fair  and  equitable  consideration.   In
addition, the Board majority believes the acquisition review should be
conducted by the National Security Agency  (NSA).   Although  the  Air
Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  was  unable  to  locate  a
qualified Acquisition Examiner at NSA, it was noted that the applicant
has provided a name and telephone number of an individual at  NSA  who
may be qualified to do the acquisition  review.   The  Board  majority
believes it would be in the best interest of all concerned if the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility would contact  the  recommended
individual at NSA to ascertain if he is the appropriate individual  to
conduct the acquisition review.  In view of the foregoing,  the  Board
majority recommends  the  contested  OPR  be  amended  to  reflect  an
acquisition review by an NSA Acquisition Examiner, if possible.

      b.  With regard to the contested PRF, inasmuch as the  contested
OPR did  not  contain  the  acquisition  review,  the  Board  majority
believes it is feasible that the  senior  rater  was  unaware  of  the
applicant’s acquisition officer status at the time he prepared the PRF
in question.  In view of the circumstances of  this  case,  the  Board
majority believes the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor
of the applicant.  The Board majority therefore  recommends  that  the
senior rater be provided an  opportunity  to  reconsider  his  initial
promotion recommendation on  the  P0494A  PRF,  with  the  applicant’s
corrected record.  Although the applicant requested  that  this  Board
should upgrade his PRF, the Board majority believes the aforementioned
recommendation is the proper and fitting relief in this case.

      c.  As to the issue of the P0494A  Selection  Board,  the  Board
majority noted  the  comments  from  the  Air  Force  (HQ  AFPC/DPPPA)
indicating  that  the  applicant  is  not   eligible   for   promotion
consideration by the P0494A Selection Board.   Notwithstanding  DPPA’s
statement, it is the Board majority’s view that the applicant suffered
an injustice by not having the OPR updated in a timely  manner,  which
may have been a factor in the senior rater’s promotion  recommendation
rendered on the contested PRF.  As a consequence of the above and  due
to the convoluted circumstances  in  this  case,  the  Board  majority
believes that the most appropriate and  fitting  relief  would  be  to
provide the applicant another opportunity for promotion consideration.
 The Board majority believes that by extending the applicant’s date of
separation, he would then be  eligible  for  promotion  consideration.
The Board majority therefore recommends that the applicant be provided
consideration for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  a  Special
Selection Board for the CY 94A (P0494A) Major  Selection  Board,  with
his corrected record.

      d.  With regard to applicant’s request  for  reinstatement,  the
Board majority believes that, if selected for promotion by an SSB, the
issue of reinstatement would be resolved at that time.

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(s) involved.
_________________________________________________________________

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 Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF  Form
707B, rendered for the period 27 May 1993  through  26  May  1994,  be
amended in Section VIII (Reviewer) by  adding  an  acquisition  review
preferably by a National Security Agency acquisition  examiner  (Point
of Contact:  --, at --).

      b.  The senior rater of the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF),
prepared for use by the Calendar Year 1994A Major Board, be given  the
opportunity to reevaluate his assessment based on  the  corrected  OPR
closing 26 May 1994.

      c.  He was released from active duty in the grade of captain and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve, under the provisions of AFR  36-
12 (Resign: Early Release Program - Voluntary Separation Incentive) on
20 November 1994 rather than 18 November 1994.

      d.  It is  further  recommended  that,  subsequent  to  the  PRF
review, he be considered for promotion to the  grade  of  major  by  a
Special Selection Board for the  Calendar  Year  1994A  Central  Major
Selection Board, which convened on 22 August 1994, with  inclusion  of
his corrected record.

      e.  If he is selected for promotion to the grade of  major,  the
results of the SSB be made  available  to  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) at  the  earliest  practicable
date.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 2 May 2000  and  12  September  2000,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Leta L. O’Connor, Member
              Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Member

Messrs. Yonkers and Williams voted to correct the record as recommended.
 Ms. O’Connor voted to deny the applicant’s request but did  not  desire
to submit a minority report.  The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  AFBCMR Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Sep 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Aug 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 30 Aug 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Sep 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from applicant, dated 4 Oct 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/CPPPD, dated 12 Jun 00, w/atch.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 00.
   Exhibit J.  Letter from applicant, dated 10 Aug 00.




                                   TERRY A. YONKERS
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 99-00969




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 Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF
Form 707B, rendered for the period 27 May 1993 through 26 May 1994, be
amended in Section VIII (Reviewer) by adding an acquisition review,
preferably by a National Security Agency acquisition examiner (Point
of Contact:  --, at --).

            b.  The senior rater of the Promotion Recommendation Form
(PRF), prepared for use by the Calendar Year 1994A Major Board, be
given the opportunity to reevaluate his assessment based on the
corrected OPR closing 26 May 1994.

            c.  He was released from active duty in the grade of
captain and transferred to the Air Force Reserve, under the provisions
of AFR 36-12 (Resign: Early Release Program - Voluntary Separation
Incentive) on 20 November 1994 rather than 18 November 1994.

            d.  It is further directed that, subsequent to the PRF
review, he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a
Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1994A Central Major
Selection Board, which convened on 22 August 1994, with inclusion of
his corrected record.

            e.  If he is selected for promotion to the grade of major,
the results of the SSB be made available to the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) at the earliest practicable
date.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency