RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-00033
            INDEX CODE 131.09
            COUNSEL: None

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by the  Calendar
Year 1999A (CY99A) Colonel Selection Board with  a  date  of  rank  of
1 May 00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The level and range of his responsibilities demonstrated  his  ability
to serve in the next higher grade.   He  must  achieve  the  grade  of
colonel in order to fulfill his commitment  to  becoming  an  American
embassy attaché.

During his entire tour at the Ballistic Missile  Defense  Organization
(BMDO), he  never  had  any  informal  or  formal  feedback  sessions.
Therefore, his  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  are  inaccurate
because they reflect feedback sessions had  taken  place.   The  tone,
remarks, and assessments of  his  job  performance  were  inaccurately
depicted on his performance reports. His supervisors during  his  tour
at BMDO inconsistently managed his duties, performance and  subsequent
OPRs.

In addition, he was serving in a joint-officer billet in BMDO and,  in
accordance with the Goldwater-Nichols act of  1986,  was  required  to
attend Joint Professional Military Education (PME) Phase II within one
year  after  assuming  the  position.  However,  he  was  denied   the
opportunity to attend this required training. Since he  had  completed
Air War College via correspondence, he was not allowed the opportunity
to apply for one of the available  Senior  Service  School  (SSS)  in-
residence slots.

Because his promotion board was moved from  Dec  99  to  Aug  99,  his
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was written while he  was  in  his
remote tour rather than from his position in  Washington  DC.   It  is
important  to  note  the  administrative  details  of   his   overseas
assignment: he was administratively assigned  to  HQ  USAFE  (Europe),
permanently assigned to an Army post in  Germany,  on  temporary  duty
(TDY) status to the Former Yugoslavian Republic (FYR), and worked  for
and had his performance reports written by
USEUCOM. A senior officer will give the more favorable PRFs  to  those
officers he sees and works with  daily  than  to  an  unknown  officer
serving at a remote location.

He did not receive a copy of the PRF and Officer  Pre-selection  Brief
(OPB) in a timely manner. He received both  documents  on  16 Jul  99.
Errors were noted on the OPB; however, there was no means  to  correct
these errors before the board convened on 2  Aug  99.  The  Air  Force
should  expend  greater  resources  and  effort  to  insure  that   an
individual’s OPB and PRF are received in a  timely  manner  to  effect
corrections, especially when the member is on a remote assignment.

The applicant’s 4-page statement, with 16 attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel (date of rank: 1 Apr 94) and  is  assigned
to HQ USAF, Pentagon.

During the primary period in question, he was assigned to  the  Office
of the Secretary of  Defense  (OSD),  BMDO,  as  the  Country  Program
Manager, International Affairs. He also served as Deputy  Director  in
the absence of the Director of  International  Affairs.  He  served  a
remote tour of duty in the former republic of  Yugoslavia-Slovenia  in
support of several NATO operations.

He was considered as a below-the-promotion-zone (BPZ) candidate by the
CY97B (8 Dec 97) and the CY98C (1 Dec 98) colonel selection board, but
was not selected.

The applicant was considered, but not selected, as an in-the-promotion-
zone (IPZ) candidate by the CY99A (2 Aug 99) colonel selection  board.
The most current duty assignment entry reflected on the CY99A OSB  was
“16 Jul 99, Bomber Force Programmer.”  He was also not selected by the
CY00A (17 Jul 00) board.  The  overall  recommendation  for  the  PRFs
considered by these boards was “Promote.”

He filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and, on  25 Jan
00, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved his request to
correct the OPRs closing 13 Dec 94, 13 Dec 95, 10 May 97  and  10  May
98. As a result, he was afforded consideration  by  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the CY97B, CY98C and CY99A colonel selection boards on
15 May and 28 Aug 00. The most current duty assignment  entry  on  the
CY99A OSB was changed to “16  Jul  99,  Deputy  Chief,  Combat  Forces
Division.” (A
copy of the corrected Officer Selection Brief (OSB)  reviewed  by  the
CY99A SSB is provided as an attachment to Exhibit  C.)  The  applicant
was not selected by the SSBs.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion, Appts, & Sel Cont. Br.,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPO,
reviewed the appeal and does not understand why the applicant did  not
request his OPB if he had not received it.  He made corrections to the
CY99A OSB that was to be reviewed  by  the  SSB  and  it  appears  the
remaining information was accurate. Further, the applicant  physically
reviewed his record and was provided a copy of this OSB prior  to  the
SSB. Although not the optimum, the applicant  still  had  a  full  two
weeks to make arrangements with the senior rater if  he  believed  the
PRF had material errors.  The PRF used for the central board  was  the
same used for the SSB. This time, the applicant reviewed the PRF prior
to the SSB and had opportunity to challenge it if  it  was  incorrect.
They have no record he challenged the  PRF’s  validity.  Further,  the
applicant  provided  additional  information  for  the   CY99A   SSB’s
consideration. He has been given due process on  these  issues.  Other
than the applicant’s own opinions, he has provided  no  substantiation
to his allegations.  All the issues  he  has  brought  forth  in  this
current appeal were rectified during the SSB.  No  further  relief  is
warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE,  states  that  a
rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested  feedback  session,
or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) will
not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent OPR or PRF.  Further, AFI 36-
2402 states a senior  rater  provides  a  ratee  a  copy  of  the  PRF
approximately [emphasis advisory’s] 30 days, not a minimum of 30 days,
before  the  selection  board.   While  the  applicant  did  reference
incorrect  data  on  his  OPB,  he  made  no  mention  of  errors   or
inaccuracies on his PRF or what impact (if any) not receiving it until
two weeks before the board had on his nonselection.  The applicant has
been granted due process through SSB consideration. No further  relief
is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his rebuttal, with 8 attachments, the applicant contends  the  most
current duty assignment entry on the CY99A OSB reviewed by the SSB was
incorrect and should have been “Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division,”
not Bomber Force  Programmer.  [However,  according  to  Attachment  2
provided by HQ AFPC/DPPPO at Exhibit C, the OSB for the CY99A SSB  was
corrected to reflect “Deputy Chief, Combat  Forces  Division”  as  the
most current duty assignment.] There was no avenue for him to  address
or challenge the validity of the PRF with his being on a  remote  tour
and the promotion board only  two  weeks  away.  He  expounds  on  his
earlier  contentions  and  asserts  the  advisory  opinions  have  not
addressed  all  the  issues.   He   was   clearly   denied   available
opportunities to obtain the important milestone [of SSS  in-residence]
for his consideration to colonel.  He understands the need to schedule
promotion  boards  when  needed.  However,  the  rescheduling  of  his
promotion board coupled with the extension of his remote tour unfairly
and improperly degraded the strength of his posturing for meeting  his
primary colonel promotion board.   He  requests  direct  promotion  to
colonel.

A complete copy of his response, with 8 attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Assignment Procedures & Joint Officer  Management  Section,
HQ AFPC/DPAPE, advises that the purpose of Joint Professional Military
Education Phase II (JPME II) is to train and educate officers in joint
matters and to  establish  a  pool  of  eligible  officers  for  joint
specialty officer (JSO) nomination. It is not a prerequisite for joint
assignments.  The JPME II training quotas cannot support all  officers
selected yearly for joint assignments.  Nominating officers, like  the
applicant, for TDY and return  is  at  the  discretion,  but  not  the
obligation, of the supervisor and  general  officer  assigned  to  the
joint organization.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, notes  that  the
applicant asserts his job performance was inaccurately depicted on his
OPRs. However, he  has  not  provided  statements  from  rating  chain
evaluators regarding any particular performance reports with which  he
may be concerned. Unsubstantiated conjectures about the motives of the
evaluators, or how or why the report turned out  as  it  did,  do  not
contribute to the case.  Also, lack  of  counseling  or  feedback,  by
itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accurate or justness  of  a
report. Evaluators must confirm they did  not  provide  counseling  or
feedback and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.   He
has not substantiated his OPRs were not rendered in good faith by  all
evaluators.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Chief, Officer Promotion &  Appointment  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPOO,
confirmed that the applicant’s duty title was accurately reflected  as
“Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division” on the CY99A  OSB  used  during
his SSB process.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachment,  is  at
Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS:

The applicant  provided  a  10-page  rebuttal,  with  10  attachments,
consisting primarily of the directives cited in his letter. He  argues
that the advisory is correct in stating that attendance at JPME II  is
not a requirement for joint assignments; however, it  is  mistaken  in
the assertion that there is no obligation to nominate officers serving
in a joint organization to attend JPME II training.  The establishment
of the two-phase JPME system is the basic foundation of the Goldwater-
Nichols Act of 86 to create a seamless joint US military  through  the
establishment of the JSO designation in the Services’  officer  corps.
With regard to the OPRs in question,  performance  feedback,  and  not
having letters from the evaluators, he did not want to  engage  in  an
unprofessional, unproductive “he said/she said”  melee.   Contrary  to
the  evaluation,  there  is  a  strong  and  essential  link   between
performance feedback and  the  performance  report.  He  has  provided
documentation demonstrating the unwillingness of his rater to  conduct
the feedback session and complete the Performance Feedback  Worksheet.
His supervisory chain did not comply  with  the  core  values  of  the
Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Officer  Professional  Development
(OPD). Without completion of JPME II, he could not be awarded the  JSO
certification. This  action  also  circumvented  the  requirement  for
performance  report  standards,  promotion   board   membership,   and
promotion board standard.  By  the  very  nature  of  serving  at  the
highest levels of the HQ Air Force and the Office of the Secretary  of
Defense, he has demonstrated the  capability  to  serve  in  the  next
higher grade.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submissions, we are  not
persuaded that he should be promoted to the grade of  colonel  thorugh
the  correction  of  records   process.   The   offices   of   primary
responsibility have adequately addressed the  applicant’s  essentially
uncorroborated  assertions  and  we  agree  with  their  opinions  and
recommendations. Contrary  to  his  implied  contention,  the  rater’s
handwritten note  does  not  confirm  that  feedback  never  occurred.
Further, he has not demonstrated that any alleged lack of feedback  or
rating  chain  mismanagement  adversely  impacted   his   performance,
unfairly denied him nomination for specific training  and  assignment,
or resulted in his nonselection for promotion. The applicant had ample
opportunity to challenge the validity of his record  and  correct  any
perceived inaccuracies therein when the SSBs for the CY97B, CY98C  and
CY99A selection boards considered him for  promotion  to  colonel.  He
also provided additional information in a letter for the  CY99A  SSB’s
consideration. The OSB reviewed by the CY99A SSB  correctly  reflected
his then most current duty assignment entry. The evidence submitted to
this Board does  not  demonstrate  that  the  applicant’s  performance
reports, PRFs, or OSBs were erroneous when reviewed by the SSBs,  that
his record was not afforded full and fair consideration,  or  that  he
was wrongfully deprived of  any  professional  education,  assignment,
promotion or due process. We do not doubt the applicant is a dedicated
professional; however, he has not  shown  he  is  entitled  to  direct
promotion to colonel or to any additional correction  to  his  records
beyond those  already  effected.  We  therefore  adopt  the  rationale
expressed in the Air Force evaluations as the basis for  our  decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered
either an error or an injustice. In  view  of  the  above  and  absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

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.
_________________________________________________________________

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 27 Sep 01 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Feb 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 8 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Feb 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Mar 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPE, dated 13 Jun 01.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Jul 01.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 19 Jul 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair