RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00969
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The promotion recommendation form (PRF) rendered on him for  the  CY99B
(30 Nov 99) Central Lieutenant Colonel promotion board be replaced with
a new PRF and/or “Definitely Promote” (DP) overall recommendation.

He be  considered  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  Colonel  by  special
selection  board  (SSB)  for  the  CY99B  Lieutenant  Colonel   Central
Selection Board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period  10
Jul 98 through 9 Jul 99 may not have been fully considered by  the  Air
Combat Command (ACC) Management Level Review (MLR) board for the  CY99B
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.

The OPR closing out 9 Jul 99 was not signed by the  reviewer  until  18
Oct 99 and was not in his records at the start of the ACC MLR conducted
21 through 22 Oct 99.

Since the OPR closing out 9 Jul 99 was not available at  the  start  of
the review or was entered into the review  at  some  point  during  the
proceedings, there is the strong potential that either  the  MLR  board
did not fully evaluate his entire record of  performance  or  the  late
entry caused a negative bias to the review.

He has the support of his senior rater and the MLR Board  President  to
replace the PRF rendered  on  him  for  the  CY99B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel promotion board.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is  30 May 1984.
 The applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for  promotion  to
lieutenant  Colonel  by  the  CY99B  and  CY00A  (28  Nov  00)  central
lieutenant colonel selection boards.  A review of the applicant’s  last
ten OPRs reflects overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The  applicant
appealed the PRF rendered on  him  for  the  CY99B  lieutenant  colonel
selection board to the Evaluation Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  on  1
December 2000.  The ERAB denied his appeal on 29 March 2001.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPO,  evaluated
this application and addressed the applicant’s  request  for  promotion
consideration  by  SSB.   They  recommend  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  evaluation  Reports,  which  the
ERAB denied.  The ERAB decided that the applicant’s  documentation  did
not support his contention of a material  error,  so  they  denied  his
request.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP conducted a second  evaluation  to  address  the  applicant’s
request for a revised PRF.

Applicant alleges that his most recent OPR was missing from his  MAJCOM
records when the MLR began.  While the  OPR  may  have  been  completed
outside the prescribed timeliness, his evaluator (who signed the OPR on
18 Oct 00) realized it was missing from the MAJCOM record and “acquired
the OPR and took it to the board.”  The applicant further alleges  that
his senior rater was not aware of powerful and superior  stratification
performance statements such as Squadron Field Grade Officer of the Year
and Aerospace C2 & ISR  Center  Jabara/Sijan  Awards  nominee.   It  is
unclear whether the applicant is referring to his senior rater  or  the
MLR president.  Had  this  vital  information  been  missing  from  the
applicant’s PRF, he would have a strong case for appeal.  However, both
of these statements, found in the applicant’s last OPR were also  noted
in his PRF, meaning not only did the senior rater and the MLR president
have access to this information, so did the other members of the MLR.

The applicant provided an unsigned e-mail, which quoted the  93  ACW/CC
as stating he noticed the OPR was missing after “50% of the records had
been reviewed.”  The quality review process is  specifically  designed,
among other things, to allow senior  raters  to  discover  and  correct
these sorts of errors.  The fact that this  error  was  caught  in  the
review process and  rectified  before  scoring  is  evidence  that  the
quality review served its purpose.

The applicant’s package clearly shows that his OPR, while not initially
available to the MLR, was provided before the  scoring  process  began.
The OPR in question was the basis for at least two comments on his PRF.
 And, finally,  “the  replacement”  PRF  is  a  verbatim  copy  of  the
original, with the exception of a recommended “DP” rating.  These facts
suggest that the perceived errors were not significant enough to affect
the overall outcome of the MLR.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluations in a three-page letter  with
nine attachments.  The applicant states that he has  provided  evidence
to supplement his case consisting of amplifying factors with highlights
of career accolades to substantiate promotion.

He states that bias in the judgement of his records caused by  lack  of
accountability by his chain of command during the period of 7 Jul 00 to
24 Oct 00 did not allow for his promotion to lieutenant colonel.

The applicant indicates that in his present position he is required  to
take a crew of men and women into hostile fire and  execute  the  Joint
Force Commander’s  intent  using  wartime  rules  of  engagement  (ROE)
without deviation.  Failure on his part in  application  of  ROE  could
result in criminal  liability  or  potentially  the  loss  of  friendly
forces.  The applicant further states that the  ROE  prescribed  within
Air Force Instructions (AFIs) were violated during  the  completion  of
his OPR and PRF.  Specifically, he states that AFI 36-2402, 1 July 1996
was violated as follows:

        A.  Paragraph 3.6.4.3.  His OPR was signed 101 days late by the
senior rater.

        B.  Paragraph 4.4.1.2 and 4.4.1.3.  The Senior  Rater  was  not
knowledgeable of his most recent performance or solely responsible  for
evaluating Record of Performance (ROP).

The closeout date for PRF completion was well past before the  OPR  was
ready and was not reviewed by the Senior Rater.  Someone  else  drafted
the PRF and the Senior Rater weighed the merits of his  incomplete  ROP
against other candidates.  He states that he was not stationed  at  the
same location as his senior rater as two of the individuals he competed
against were.  Due to his lack of proximity to the Senior Rater and the
Senior Rater’s ability to  see  his  performance  was  a  factor.   The
applicant states that a cursory view of his ROP would show  a  complete
perfect career.

The applicant states that to change an  overall  rating  on  a  PRF  to
“Definitely Promote” (DP) requires concurrence of both the senior rater
and MLR president.  He succeeded and obtained concurrence.   There  was
no need to change anything else on the PRF.  The DP along  changes  his
record.

The applicant  states  that  a  signed  statement  from  his  commander
articulates that the missing and late  OPR  was  a  distracter  to  his
excellent records.  Regardless of the timing, any potential for bias at
the Management Level Review Board represented an  unfair  disadvantage.
He states that the statements “My Best Major” and “AC2ISRC Field  Grade
Officer, 2nd Qtr” were not known or reviewed by the Senior Rater  prior
to the PRF completion or “until 50% of the records had  been  reviewed”
by the MLR board resulting in the  most  important,  vital  information
missing from the PRF.  The applicant  provides  further  examples  that
show his outstanding duty performance.

The applicant reiterates that he has  the  concurrence  of  his  senior
rater with a new PRF and a  “DP”  promotion  recommendation.   The  MLR
board president also concurs.  He asks the AFBCMR right  the  oversight
during  his  initial  consideration  and  to  grant  him  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice.   The  Board  was  primarily
persuaded by the support the applicant received from  both  his  senior
rater and president of the MLR to change his PRF.  We  also  note  that
due to the lateness of the applicant’s OPR closing out 9 Jul 99,  there
are questions over its  impact  during  the  MLR  process.   The  Board
believes that any doubt should be resolved in favor of  the  applicant.
Therefore, we recommend that  the  record  be  corrected  as  indicated
below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for the  CY99B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board, be, and hereby is, declared void  and  removed
from  his  records  and  replaced  with  the  attached   reaccomplished
Promotion Recommendation Form with an overall recommendation  in  block
nine of “Definitely Promote.”

It is further  recommended  that  his  record,  to  include  the  above
referenced corrected PRF, be considered for promotion to the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY99B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 Jun 01,
                 w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 5 Jun 01,
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jun 01, w/atchs.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-00969




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 XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that the
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for the CY99B Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records and replaced with the attached reaccomplished
Promotion Recommendation Form with an overall recommendation in block
nine of “Definitely Promote.”

      It is further directed that his record, to include the above
referenced corrected PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY99B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency


Attachment
Reaccomplished PRF