RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-02709
                       INDEX CODE:  111.01

                       COUNSEL:  DAVID E. WHEELER

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the  period  3
June 1985 through 12 December 1985, be declared void and replaced with
a reaccomplished OER.

2.  He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  effective  and
with date of rank as if selected for promotion by  the  Calendar  Year
1999B Lieutenant Colonel Board.

3.  He be selected to attend Senior Service School (SSS) in residence.

4.  He receive any and all other relief in law and in equity to  which
he may be justly entitled.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OER did not accurately reflect his  duty  performance  during  the
contested period and that it was the only negative entry of  any  kind
found in his record thereby causing his promotion nonselection.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
statement from the rater explaining how he was  improperly  influenced
to rate the applicant lower than he deserved, and  advising  that  the
lower ratings were based on factors other than duty  performance.   He
also submits statements from the additional  rater  and  the  indorser
urging that the corrected OER replace the  improperly  influenced  OER
that is presently in applicant’s record.

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 major.

Applicant was considered  and  nonselected  by  the  CY99B  and  CY00A
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFR 31-11 and the appeal was considered  and  denied  by  the  Officer
Personnel Records Review Board (OPRRB).

OER/OPR profile since 1985, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                        12 Jun 85                  1-1-1
                       *12 Dec 85                  1-1-1
                        12 Jun 86                  1-1-1
                        19 Dec 86                  1-1-1
                        18 Jun 87       Education/Training Report (TR)
                        25 Nov 87                  1-1-1
                        25 Nov 88   Meets Standards (MS)
                        25 Nov 89                    MS
                        15 Dec 89                    TR
                         1 Jul 90                    MS
                         1 Jul 91                    MS
                         1 Jul 92                    MS
                        25 Mar 93                    MS
                        28 Feb 94                    MS
                        28 Feb 95                    MS
                         1 Oct 95                    MS
                        16 May 96                    MS
                        16 May 97                    MS
                        12 Dec 97                    TR
                        31 Mar 98                    MS
                        31 Mar 99                    MS
                        31 Mar 00                    MS

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,   AFPC/DPPPA,   reviewed   the
application and states that  the  rater’s  statement  implies  he  was
coerced into downgrading the applicant’s OER.  However,  he  does  not
explain what the outcome would have been had he stuck to his guns  and
insisted on leaving the front side markings marked all the way to  the
right.  The additional rater and the indorser  do  not  back  up  this
claim.  Instead, they both state they were informed  that  the  rating
official was directed to downgrade the applicant’s front side ratings.
 The appeals process does not exist to  recreate  history  or  enhance
chances for promotion.

In reference to the applicant contending the only negative entries  of
any kind found in his military record were the  negative  remarks  and
ratings of the rater in the OER; they state  there  were  other  areas
within the applicant’s record that were noted.  It’s  noted  that,  as
such, the contested OER, while it may have had a  negative  impact  in
his early career, was not the only negative factor in the  applicant’s
record and certainly not the deciding factor when  the  applicant  was
nonselected for promotion.

It is also noted that while it may be argued that  the  contested  OER
was a factor in  the  applicant’s  nonselection,  there  is  no  clear
evidence that it  negatively  impacted  his  promotion  opportunity  -
particularly in light of the applicant’s DP  promotion  recommendation
and selection by the CY95A board.  Central boards evaluate the  entire
officer selection record (OSR) (including the promotion recommendation
form, officer performance reports, OERs, training repots,  letters  of
evaluation, decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing whole
person factors such as job performance, professional qualities,  depth
and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic  and  professional
military  education.   They  are  not  convinced  the  contested   OER
contributed  to  the  applicant’s   nonselection.    Therefore,   they
recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  the
applicant was aware of the OER.  He knew it did not fairly reflect his
duty performance during the rating period.  He attempted to appeal the
ratings and comments in an AFR 31-11 action  in  1988.   However,  the
applicant was not aware that his rater had been coerced to  lower  his
ratings and to insert derogatory comments in his OER until  May  2000.
He states the only  possible  way  to  correct  the  injustice  is  by
immediately promoting applicant and sending him to  a  Senior  Service
School (in residence); only these actions will place him back on track
with his peers.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, the majority of the Board is  not  persuaded  that
the applicant’s records are in error or that he has been the victim of
an injustice.  His contentions are noted; however, it is  the  opinion
of the majority of the Board that the detailed  comments  provided  by
the appropriate Air Force office adequately address those allegations.
 Therefore, the majority of the Board agrees  with  the  opinions  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis
for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the  contrary,  the
majority finds no compelling basis 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  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
            Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
            Ms. Mary C. Johnson, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Johnson voted to correct the records but does not desire to submit
a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:





      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Sep 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 19 Oct 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 00.
      Exhibit E.  Counsel’s Response, dated 6 Apr 01, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair






AFBCMR 00-02709
INDEX CODE:  111.01




MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency








MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                          CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MIB

SUBJECT:, AFBCMR Docket Number 00-02709

      I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request
should be denied.

      In arriving at my decision, I note that the statement provided
by the applicant’s rater indicates how he was improperly influenced to
rate the applicant lower than he deserved, and advised that the lower
ratings were based on factors other than duty performance.  I also
note the statements provided by the additional rater and the indorser
urging that the corrected OER replace the improperly influenced OER
that is presently in applicant’s record.

      In view of the unanimous support from the rating chain, and in
an effort to preclude any possibility of an injustice, I direct that
the OER closing 12 December 1985 be declared void and replaced with a
reaccomplished report.  In addition, his corrected record should be
considered for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB) for all
appropriate selection boards and, if selected for promotion, he be
considered for Senior Service School.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency





AFBCMR 00-02709
INDEX CODE:  111.01




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:

          a.  The pertinent military records of the Department of the
Air Force relating to , be corrected to show that the Officer
Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the period 3 June 1985 through
12 December 1985, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
his records.

          b.  The attached Officer Effectiveness Report rendered for
the same period 3 June 1985 through 12 December 1985, which reflects
in Section III, Performance Factors, a rating of “1,” be placed in his
records in its proper sequence.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Year 1999B Lieutenant Colonel Board, and for any subsequent
board in which the above corrections were not a matter of record.  In
addition, if selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel, he be considered for Senior Service School in residence by
Special Selection Board.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency


AFBCMR 00-02709
INDEX CODE:  111.01




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, be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer
performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 29 May 1998
through 28 May 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
his records.

      It is further directed that his corrected report be considered
for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Year 2000A Major Board and for any subsequent board in which
the above corrections were not a matter of record.





                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency