RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02265
            INDEX NUMBER:  133.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The decision that he retire in the grade of major  resulting  from  the
officer grade determination (OGD) done by  the  Secretary  of  the  Air
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) be reconsidered.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Certain documents that should have been available for his OGD were  not
included in his official military records and may have  prejudiced  the
decision made in his case.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from  the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the memorandum  prepared
by  the  Director,  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Council,
SAF/MIBP, dated 12 January 2001.  Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Retirements Branch, AFPC/DPPRR, evaluated  this  application
and addressed the OGD processing and contents of the OGD package.  They
determined that the applicant’s OGD package was processed properly, but
did not include his 15 Apr 96 OPR because it did not become a matter of
record until 24 Nov 97, 19 months after closeout, and  approximately  1
month after SAFPC had made a decision on his OGD.  They also note  that
there is a discrepancy in the applicant’s 6 Nov 95 OPR.  In view of the
OPR discrepancy and the missing OPR, they referred the  case  to  SAFPC
for review and reconsideration.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  evaluated  this
application and addressed the OPR issues.  They determined that the OPR
closing out 15 Apr 96 was not included in the applicant’s  OGD  package
due to its untimely processing.  In regards to the 6 Nov 95  OPR,  they
state that the discrepancy lies in the comments and date the additional
rater signed the OPR.  They state that although  it  is  impossible  to
determine the exact reason for  the  discrepancy  in  the  OPR,  it  is
reasonable to believe that the OPR was returned  for  correction.   The
OPR did not contain the required  comment  on  whether  the  additional
rater  did  or  did  not  receive  comments   from   the   ratee.    In
reaccomplishing this OPR, the additional rater would have had to remove
one of his original bullets in order to include the mandatory bullet on
whether comments were received from the ratee.  In addition, he put the
current date on the revised OPR; hence the discrepancy in the  comments
and date.  They recommend  approval  of  the  applicant’s  request  for
reconsideration of his OGD and that the copy of the 6  Nov  95  OPR  be
replaced with a copy from his Officer Selection Record (OSR) and that a
copy of the 15 Apr 96 OPR be included.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

______________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 Jan 01, SAFPC reconsidered the applicant’s OGD with  the  missing
15 Apr 96 OPR included and a  copy  of  the  6  Nov  95  OPR  from  the
applicant’s OSR.  They also reviewed the medals and diploma provided by
the applicant.  After reconsidering the relevant criteria, SAFPC  found
that  despite  the  applicant’s  outstanding  record  of  service,  the
incident for which he was court-martialed was so serious that it  would
be  inappropriate  to  conclude  that  his  service  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel was satisfactory.

The complete review and reconsideration is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the evaluations were mailed to the applicant on     23 Mar 01
for his review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not
been received.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional evaluation was mailed to the  applicant  on  2
May 01 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response  has
not been received.

_______________________________________________________________
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
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.  We note that the OGD done  on  the  applicant  has
been reconsidered with the missing documents included.   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 13 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 17 Oct 00.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 25 Oct 00.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, SAF/MIBP, dated 12 Jan 01, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 May 01.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair