RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00953
            INDEX CODE 111.01   111.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The  Officer  Effectiveness  Report  (OER)  rendered  for  the  period
17 February 1986 through 16 February 1987, be amended to  reflect  a  close-
out date of 1 January  1988  and  the  number  of  days  of  supervision  be
adjusted accordingly.

2.    The Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, AF Form 77,  dated  2 August  1995,
covering the period 17 February 1987 through  1  January  1988,  be  removed
from his records.

3.    His corrected record be considered by any Senior Service School  (SSS)
candidacy/designation/selection boards and by any colonel  selection  boards
that the now voided OER rendered for the period 17 February 1987  through  1
January 1988, was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since the Supplemental Evaluation Sheet is dated 2 years after  his  primary
colonel selection board met, it sent a clear “Red  Flag”  to  any  selection
board that there was a problem with his record.

The applicant states that although removal of  the  OER,  closing  1 January
1988,  provided  some  relief,  it  does  not  provide  permanent  and  full
correction.  The Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet  only  documents  that  the
report was removed and provides no  information  about  his  performance  or
performance-based potential.  As a result, board members, senior raters,  or
reporting officials are left to speculate  about  what  happened.   This  is
especially true when it comes  to  Special  Selection  Boards  (SSBs)  where
voided  reports  serve  as  a  “Red  Flag”  to  board  members  and  can  be
prejudicial.   He  should  not  be  penalized  by  a  void  created   by   a
Supplemental Evaluation Sheet in his record which is  through  no  fault  of
his own.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  indorser
of the voided OER, his personal statement and copies of  the  contested  OER
and Supplemental Evaluation Sheet.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the  grade  of
colonel by the CY93A and CY94A Col boards.

On 6 October 1994, the Board considered applicant’s  request  that  the  OER
rendered for the period 9 November 1974 through 30 April  1975  be  upgraded
to “9.4,” or in the alternative, the OER be removed from his records and  he
be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY93A Col board.  The  Board  was
not persuaded that the record raised  issues  of  error  or  injustice,  but
elected to deny the application on the basis of timeliness (94-00337).

On 15 June 1995, the Board favorably  considered  applicant’s  request  that
the OER rendered for the period 17 February 1987 through 1 January  1988  be
declared void and he be considered for promotion  by  SSBs  for  the  CY92A,
CY93 and CY94 Col boards, and if selected, he be  considered  for  SSS  (94-
03053).

On 2 August 1996, the Board reconsidered, and  denied  on  the  merits,  the
applicant’s request that the OER rendered for the  period  9  November  1974
through 30 April 1975 be upgraded to “9.4,” or in the alternative,  the  OER
be removed from his records and he be considered by  SSB  for  any  and  all
promotion, augmentation and SSS boards convened after  30  April  1975  (94-
00337).

On 1 October  1996,  the  Board  considered  applicant’s  request  that  his
nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel be declared void; he  be
directly promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected  by  the  CY93  Col
board,  with  retroactive  pay,  benefits,  and  entitlements;  or  in   the
alternative, the PRF prepared for the CY93A Col board be  removed  from  his
records and  replaced  with  a  reaccomplished  PRF  reflecting  an  overall
“Definitely Promote” recommendation and his corrected record  be  considered
for promotion by an SSB for the CY93A  Col  board.   The  Board  denied  his
request for direct promotion to the grade of colonel through the  correction
of records process and favorably considered the remainder  of  his  requests
(96-00856).

On 22 July 1997, the  applicant  was  placed  on  the  Temporary  Disability
Retired List (TDRL) in the grade of lieutenant colonel  with  a  compensable
disability rating of 50%, based on severe avascular  necrosis  of  the  left
hip and status post total left hip arthroplasty.

On 23 May 1999, the Board reconsidered and denied  the  applicant’s  request
for direct promotion (96-00856).

On 14 September 1999, the applicant was permanently retired in the grade  of
lieutenant colonel with a compensable disability rating  of  30%,  based  on
avascular  necrosis  of  the  left  hip  and  status  post  left  total  hip
arthroplasty.  He completed 24 years,  10  months,  and  2  days  of  active
service for retirement.

Applicant’s OER/OPR profile, since 1986, is as follows:

        PERIOD ENDING                OVERALL EVALUATION

          16 Feb 86 (Maj)                  1-1-1
        * 16 Feb 87                        1-1-1
           1 Jan 88 (AF Fm 77)    Removed by SAF (94-03053)
           1 Jan 89                 Meets Standards (MS)
          30 Jun 89 (LtCol)                  MS
          30 Jun 90                          MS
          30 Jun 91                          MS
          21 Jan 92                          MS
        # 21 Jan 93                          MS
       ## 31 Dec 93                          MS
          12 Jun 94                          MS
          12 Jun 95                          MS
          12 Jun 96                          MS

* Contested report

# Top report reviewed by CY93A Col board

## Top report reviewed by CY94A Col board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed the application and states that there are no  technical  errors  in
the processing of the voided report.  The applicant  requested  the  OER  be
removed from his records and the Board approved his request.  In  accordance
with  the  governing  regulation,  the  voided  OER  was  replaced  with   a
Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet  and  the  applicant  received  supplemental
consideration for SSS.

AFPC/DPPP believes that it would not be in the interest of the  majority  of
the force to allow an individual to choose the manner in  which  corrections
to records are made.  Applicant had a report in his record,  chose  to  have
it removed and now does not agree with the form  that  replaced  the  voided
report.  While the applicant is entitled to  his  opinion,  it  is  strictly
supposition on his part  that  his  record  is  sending  up  a  “red  flag.”
Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and finds  it  hard  to  believe  that
AFPC/DPPP would question the indorser’s statement and the integrity of  this
senior officer.  Furthermore, they are incorrect in stating  that  it  would
not be in the interest  of  justice  for  the  Board  to  deviate  from  the
regulatory guidelines and alter  a  previous  OER  written  by  a  different
rating chain.  To the contrary, the voided  OER  was  written  by  the  same
rater and indorser as the contested OER that he wishes to amend.

Concerning the timeliness of his request, the applicant states that  he  has
been actively pursuing this issue since 1993.  Had he  been  aware  that  he
could have requested that the now voided OER be amended, he would have  done
so in his original application.

The applicant’s complete response 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and  noting  the  applicant’s  contentions,  we  are  not
persuaded that he has been the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   In  a
previous application to the Board, the applicant requested voidance  of  the
OER, closing 1 January 1988.  The Board  favorably  considered  his  request
and in 1995, the report was removed from his  records.   The  applicant  now
requests the close-out date of the previous OPR, closing 16  February  1987,
be changed to 1 January 1988.  The statement from  General  O---  is  noted;
however, this Board has, on several occasions, found that numerous  officers
who have voids in their records have successfully  competed  for  promotion.
Furthermore, we find no evidence that he has been  treated  any  differently
than other officers similarly situated.  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,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 9 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 4 Apr 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 01




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair