RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01399
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Letter of Evaluation (LOE),  dated  3  Feb  96,  become  a  permanent
addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30
Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be  corrected
to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any  reference  to  a
retirement date of 31  Aug  98  be  removed  from  the  OSB;  and  he  be
considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion by the  CY98B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The mandatory letter of evaluation (LOE), dated 3  Feb  96,  was  missing
from his Officer Selection Brief (OSB)  which  went  before  his  In  the
Primary Zone (IPZ) and Above the Primary  Zone  (APZ)  promotion  boards,
thereby justifying a Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  to  reconsider  his
promotion worthiness.  He further contends inaccurate counseling  on  his
retainability and the improper processing of his early retirement request
warrant justification for an APZ special selection board.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement  and
other documents relevant to the issues  under  review.   The  applicant’s
complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The following information was extracted from the  Personnel  Data  System
and from documents provided by the applicant.

The applicant is an ROTC graduate who was appointed a second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force, 31 August 1989 and was voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty on 12 March 1982.  Upon his successful completion of
a course of study at the Special Investigations Academy, he was  assigned
duties as a Special Investigation Officer.  He was  integrated  into  the
Regular Air Force on 24 May 89.
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of  major
with a date of rank of 01 Mar 94.  Subsequent to his  promotion  to  that
grade, he has received seven (7) Officer Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  in
which the overall evaluations are “Meets Standards.”  He  was  considered
and nonselected for promotion by the CY 1997C, the CY 1998B, the CY 1999A
and the CY 1999B  central  lieutenant  colonel  selection  boards,  which
convened on 21 Jul 97, 1 Jun 98, 19 Apr 99 and 6  Dec  99,  respectively.
He currently has an established date of separation of 31 Mar 02.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief Retirements Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPR,  reviewed  the  applicant’s
submission and recommended denial.  The  advisory  states  the  applicant
applied for retirement under the  Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority
(TERA) program.  The AF Form 1160, Military Retirement Actions,  item  11
clearly states, “I have read AFR 35-7, paragraph 2-6, 3-2d and Chapter  7
and understand the effects of the requested action.  I  request  approval
of actions checked in Items 9 and 10 above.”  The applicant  acknowledged
this by signing the form.   MPF  Memorandum  (MPFM)  97-64,  20  Nov  97,
guidance  for  criteria  of  eligibility  for  TERA,  requires   specific
statements be signed in understanding the  program’s  effects  upon  such
things as promotion eligibility.  DPPR concludes the applicant was  given
the opportunity to apply for a program that would  benefit  him  and  his
family, and his request was processed accordingly.  The AF Form 1160 is a
voluntary  action  and  although  the  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)
relocation office failed to provide required documentation  as  specified
in AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, the applicant signed a valid request
and the retirement is not considered invalid.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief Officer Promotion Management,  HQ,  AFPC/DPPPOO,  reviewed  the
applicant’s requests for correction to his Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)
and Special  Selection  Board  consideration  for  the  CY98B  Lieutenant
Colonel Line Central Selection Board held on 1  Jun  98  and  recommended
disapproval.  DPPPOO indicates the applicant’s OSB produced on 19 May  98
accurately reflected his date of separation as 31 Aug 98 and he therefore
remained eligible for consideration by the CY98B Central Selection Board.
 DPPPOO states that unless  the  applicant’s  retirement  application  is
found to be in error, there is no justification to  remove  it  from  the
OSB.

A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit D.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPE,  Chief  Evaluations   Programs   Branch,   reviewed   the
applicant’s request that his Letter of Evaluation (LOE) prepared on an AF
Form 77 with a closing date of 3 Feb 96 be filed in his selection  record
and recommended the request be denied.  DPPPE indicates that according to
AFR 36-10 paragraph  7-7,  a  completed  LOE  is  sent  “to  the  ratee’s
servicing CBPO” (now the Military  Personnel  Flight  {MPF}).   When  the
officer’s next Officer Performance Report (OPR) is  due,  the  MPF  sends
“the LOE to the individual’s  rater  to  assist  in  preparing  the  next
report.”  Once the OPR is completed, the reviewer “should return the  LOE
to the ratee.”  The LOE is not filed in the Officer’s  Selection  Record.
DPPPE indicates that since the contested LOE  was  not  for  training  or
education, it should  have  been  identified  as  “optional”  instead  of
“mandatory.”  Furthermore, optional LOE’s  are  never  authorized  to  be
filed in an OSR, and mandatory LOE’s ceased to  be  authorized  for  file
since 1 Aug 88.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.

The applicant’s request to remove his  retirement  date  from  his  CY98B
(1Jun 98) Lieutenant Colonel Board (PO598B) officer selection brief (OSB)
and he be granted promotion reconsideration by  the  CY97C  (21  Jul  97)
(P0597C), PO598B, and CY99A  (19  Apr  99)  (PO599A)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Boards with his LOE included in his officer selection record was reviewed
by AFPC/DPPPA, Appeals and SSB Branch.  They recommended  denial.   DPPPA
indicates that  based  on  the  findings  of  DPPPE,  DPPPOO,  DPPR,  and
documentation submitted, they can find  no  material  error  occurred  in
which to grant promotion reconsideration.

A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates  that  AFPC  failed  to  address  either  of  his
contentions in their opinion, nor did they deny his assertions that  both
issues had the potential to harm his promotion opportunity.  Instead AFPC
only provided reasons to support their recommendation of  denial.   Since
the servicing element has acknowledged that they failed to abide  by  the
guidance set forth in MPF Memorandum 97-64 and Air Force Instruction  36-
3203, Service Requirements, AFPC’s argument for  recommending  denial  is
flawed.  Admittedly, he is guilty of not reading the fine print on the AF
Form 1160.  However, had he not been erroneously counseled he would never
have applied for the early retirement program and signed  the  form.   If
the MPF had abided by mandatory Air Force procedures and briefed him from
the pre-checklist, he would have known  about  the  potential  impact  to
promotion and would not have signed the AF Form 1160, since he  knew  his
chances of receiving a Definitely Promote were high.  Therefore, from his
perspective it does not seem just to hold him accountable for signing the
form, while ignoring the erroneous counseling and  failure  to  abide  by
mandatory guidelines.

AFPC’s advisory concerning his request  that  the  Letter  of  Evaluation
(LOE) be added to his Officer Selection Folder  is  also  not  completely
accurate.  He contends the following:

      1. At the time there were at  least  three  other  types  of  LOE’s
authorized for inclusion into a member’s permanent record: those directed
by AFBCMR, those documenting an unrated period, and those directed  by  a
general officer.

      2. The originator of the LOE believes he had the authority to  make
the report mandatory since the report was directed by  a  senior  general
officer.

      3. The mandatory LOE documents an unrated period, 2 Aug 95  through
3 Feb 96, between his evaluation reports.

      4. If AFPC is correct in their assertion that the LOE is  optional,
the Military Personnel Flight failed to abide by the rules on  processing
optional  reports  which  requires  the  LOE  to  be  forwarded  to   the
individual’s rater for  inclusion  in  the  member’s  annual  performance
report.

The remainder of the applicant’s extensive rebuttal is a dissertation  on
his perspective of the current Air Force promotion system.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission is at Exhibit H.

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 warranting attachment of the
applicant’s LOE dated 3 Feb 96 to his Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)
for the period ending 3 Nov  96.   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  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, the applicant’s request that the LOE be  permanently  attached
to the 3 Nov 96 OPR is not favorably considered.

4.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice with respect to  the  appearance
of a date of separation on the applicant’s OSB and  consideration  by  an
SSB for promotion by the CY 1998B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board.
The applicant contends he was inaccurately counseled on his retainability
and his early retirement was  improperly  processed.   As  a  result,  he
applied for retirement under the  Temporary  Early  Retirement  Authority
(TERA) program, and his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated  3  Feb  96,
which went  before  the  CY98B  (1  Jun  98)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Board,
reflected a date of separation of 31 Aug 98.  The evidence indicates that
the servicing MPF failed to abide  by  the  guidance  set  forth  in  MPF
Memorandum  97-64  and  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI)  36-3203,  Service
Retirements during the applicant’s retirement processing.  We are of  the
opinion that had the applicant not  been  erroneously  counseled  by  his
servicing MPF, he would not have applied for the early retirement program
and signed the AF Form 1160, Military Retirement Actions.   We  therefore
believe his OSB should be corrected as requested  and,  to  preclude  any
possibility of a promotion injustice to the applicant, that his corrected
record should be considered for promotion by an SSB for the CY98B (1  Jun
98) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that  his  Officer  Selection
Brief, prepared for consideration  by  the  P0598B  Selection  Board,  be
corrected to reflect a separation date of “Indefinite,”  rather  than  31
Aug 98; and, he be considered for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by Special Selection  Board  for  the  CY98B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Board.

The following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 July 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
              Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 May 99.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPR, dated 20 Sep 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 10 Nov 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 Nov 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Dec 99.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 30 Dec 99.
   Exhibit H.  Applicant's Response, dated 22 Jan 00 w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair