RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01083
                       INDEX CODE: 131.01

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Calendar  Year  1998  (CY98)  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  be
declared void and replaced with  a  reaccomplished  PRF  and  his  corrected
record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar  Year  1998B  (CY98B)  Central  Major
Selection Board.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PRF for the CY98 Major  Central  Selection  Board  was  not  a  complete
assessment of his promotion potential.  The  CY98  Major  Central  Selection
Board was scheduled for 6 April 1998.  Colonel  B---,  now  his  new  senior
rater, signed his original PRF on 5 February 1998 (PRF cut off  date).   The
PRF met the ACC Management Level Review (MLR) Board  on  18  February  1998.
On 20 February 1998, HQ ACC/IG sent the  85th  Group  Operational  Readiness
Inspection (ORI) Administrative Special Instructions (SPINS).  In the  SPINS
the ACC/IG laid responsibilities on  him  that  normally  are  done  at  the
MAJCOM level.  He had to write the Master Scenario Event List (MSEL)  draft,
the  Air  Tasking   Order   (ATO),   the   Operations   SPINS,   coordinated
intelligence, target presentations and led  all  the  support  requirements.
Colonel H--- relieved Col B--- from command on  12  March  1998,  his  third
senior rater in four  months.   The  ORI  started  on  20  March  and  ended
28 March 1998.  The  group  earned  an  "Excellent"  rating  and  was  above
Command average  on  every  rated  area,  no  repeat  findings,  19 Superior
Performance teams  and  one  Command  Best  Practice.   He  had  an  Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closed out during the ORI documenting  all  of  his
efforts and although it was filed within the 60-day  suspense,  it  did  not
make it into his  selection  folder  prior  to  the  board  convening.   The
Central Selection Board met one week after the ORI ended.   His  record  met
the board with an incomplete promotion assessment and  no  documentation  of
the most important achievement of his career.

Applicant submits a statement from Senior rater,  stating  at  the  time  he
wrote the applicant's PRF for the 0498B Line AF  Major's  Central  Selection
Board and ACCs MLR Board, he did not have all the information needed  for  a
complete  assessment  of  his  promotion   potential.    To   rectify   this
unfortunate omission, he supports his appeal of the PRF and  submits  a  new
one with a more complete assessment.

Applicant also submits another letter from the ACC  MLRB  President  stating
he has reviewed  the  PRF  change  requested  by  the  applicant  and  fully
supports the request for a corrected PRF.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
captain.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the CY98B Selection Board.  However, he was selected by  the  CY99A
Major Selection Board and promoted to the grade of major effective 1  August
1999.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401 and the appeal was considered  and  denied  by  the  Evaluation  Report
Appeal Board (ERAB).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed the  application
and states that it is obvious  that  the  senior  rater  did  not  have  the
opportunity to include the ORI results prior to the MLR.   However,  he  did
have the opportunity to correct the PRF before the Central  Selection  Board
(CSB) which convened on  6 April  1998.   The  applicant  does  not  provide
evidence that an effort was made to correct the PRF prior to  the  CSB.   He
only shows a willingness by his evaluators to change the  report  after  the
fact.  This is only valid if there  is  clear  evidence  that  an  error  or
injustice was committed.  There is no evidence of an error or  injustice  in
this case.  The applicant also could have written to  the  CSB  stating  the
results of the ORI, which was not done.  There is no  evidence  that  anyone
made an attempt to correct the PRF or make the information available to  the
CSB.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Mgt,
AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the applicant  contends
the results from the ORI, which was completed on 28 March 1998, should  have
been included in his P0498B PRF.  As stated in his own brief as well  as  HQ
AFPC/DPPPE's advisory, the PRF cutoff date was 5 February 1998 and  the  MLR
was conducted on 18 February 1998.  It is  clear  the  results  of  the  ORI
would not have been available at the time the PRF was prepared  because  the
results did not exist at the time.  At this point,  two  things  could  have
happened.  First, the senior rater could have made an attempt prior  to  the
convening of the board to reaccomplish the PRF to include the  ORI  results;
however, no evidence is submitted to prove that he  tried  do  so.   Second,
the applicant could have written to the board president as he  was  entitled
to do, but he elected not to exercise this vital entitlement.  They  contend
that  there  are  many  of  the  applicant's  contemporaries  who  also  had
significant achievements occur subsequent to the PRF cutoff date  that  they
would also like to have included in their PRFs, but were not.  To grant  the
applicant's request and accept the reaccomplished PRF  would  be  unfair  to
his peers who fell into similar situations.  The applicant  would  have  the
AFBCMR believe that due to a turnover in senior raters, his record  met  the
board with an "incomplete promotion assessment."  They  note  the  applicant
states the senior rater (who signed the PRF)  temporarily  took  command  of
the 85th Group until the arrival of the  incoming  commander.   Up  to  that
time, the senior rater was the Vice Commander of  the  85th  Group  and  his
supervisor.  Once the new commander arrived, the senior  rater  resumed  his
duties as vice commander.  They are not sure why the applicant brought  this
point up as it has no bearing  on  whether  or  not  the  interim  commander
(senior rater) was the appropriate individual to sign the PRF.   It  appears
the applicant would have the AFBCMR believe he has been  victimized  in  the
promotion process when, in fact, he and his  evaluators  were  afforded  the
opportunity prior to the board to either include the ORI achievement in  his
PRF or in a letter to the board president
written by the applicant.  Neither of these actions happened.  Based on  the
evidence provided, they recommend denial due to lack of merit.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  2
August 1999, for review and response within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

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 opinion and recommendation 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 1998 was in error or unjust.  As noted  by  the  Air  Force,
the senior rater did have the opportunity to reaccomplish the contested  PRF
prior to the convening of the board.  It is also noted  that  the  applicant
could have written to the board president stating the results  of  the  85th
Group  Operational  Readiness  Inspection  (ORI),  which   was   not   done.
Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  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 3 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Jul 99.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Jul 99.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 99.





                             XXXXX
                             Panel Chair