RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01191
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the  period  12 Mar
97 through 11 Mar 98, be declared void and removed from  his  records,
and replaced with the reaccomplished OPR provided.

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for consideration by
the CY98B (P0598B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection  Board,  which
convened on 1 Jun 98, be  corrected  to  include  omitted  awards  and
duties.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  CY98B  (1  Jun  98)  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0598B) and all subsequent promotion boards,
with his corrected record.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR does not capture the  full  impact  of  two  primary
programs that he managed.  He would like two  bullets  reaccomplished,
one in Section VI and one in Section VII.

The contested PRF omits several significant accomplishments  and  does
not accurately reflect his performance.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal  statement,  a
copy of the contested OPR  and  reaccomplished  OPR,  a  copy  of  the
contested PRF and revised PRF, statements of support from  his  rating
chain and Management Level  Review  (MLR)  President,  the  Evaluation
Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  decision  and   additional   documents
associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
16 Dec 81.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major, with an effective date and date  of  rank  of  1 May  94.   The
following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to  his  promotion
to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               30 Sep 94     Meets Standards (MS)
               22 May 95          MS
               11 Mar 96             MS
               11 Mar 97          MS
            *# 11 Mar 98          MS
            ## 19 Jan 99          MS
            ### 9 Jun 99          MS
            ####9 Jun 00          MS

*  Contested OPR

# Top report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY98B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98.

## Top report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY99A  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99.

### Top report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY99B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 30 Nov 99.

#### Top report at the time he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY00A  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 28 Nov 00.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 19 Jan 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP,
stated that the  OPR  evaluators  were  aware  of  the  scope  of  the
applicant’s responsibility when the report  was  originally  prepared.
Evaluation  reports  are  considered  accurate   as   written   unless
substantial evidence  to  the  contrary  is  provided.   None  of  the
supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how  they  were  hindered
from rendering a fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  the  applicant’s
performance prior to the report being made a matter  of  record.   The
appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance  chances
for promotion.  As such, DPPPEP is not convinced the contested  report
is not accurate as written and they do not  support  the  request  for
removal and replacement.  DPPPEP presumes  the  applicant  received  a
copy of the contested PRF approximately 30  days  before  the  central
promotion board as required by the governing  Air  Force  instruction.
After the applicant reviewed his PRF with the senior rater,  he  could
have corrected or appealed its  contents  prior  to,  not  after,  the
promotion board.  In addition, the  applicant  could  have  written  a
letter to the board to  further  explain  his  accomplishments  or  to
clarify statements reflected  on  the  PRF.   Therefore,  the  PRF  is
accurate as written.  DPPPEP recommended the  applicant’s  request  to
substitute the OPR and  PRF  be  denied.   A  complete  copy  of  this
evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.


The Officer Promotions, Appts  and  Sel  Cont  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP,
stated that the applicant has  four  nonselections  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the P0598B, CY99A (P0599A), CY99B  (P0599B)  and
CY00A (P0500A)  Central  Selection  Boards.   The  applicant  filed  a
similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 which was denied by
the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  DPPP accepts  the  ERAB’s
findings and those in HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s advisory (Exhibit C)  and  have
nothing  further  to  add.   Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  DPPP
recommended the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
additional rater supplied additional information to the Board  in  his
letter of 2 Mar 01 showing there were material errors in  the  process
of crafting his PRF and his  statement  is  supported  in  the  senior
rater’s letter to the  AFBCMR.   The  senior  rater  stated  that  his
original promotion recommendation was in error due to lack of research
at the division level.  The senior rater’s statements clearly indicate
the PRF crafting process contained material errors.  Writing a  letter
to the board was not a viable option.  It  is  common  knowledge  that
writing a letter to any promotion board has a negative impact on one’s
chances for promotion.  His rater and additional rater also  told  him
that he had a  very  strong  record  and  to  not  be  concerned  with
competing for promotion, so he did not contest his PRF at  that  time.
In consideration of the information contained in his original AFI  36-
2401 request to the ERAB and the added information from his additional
rater and senior rater in his application to the AFBCMR,  he  believes
support for the evaluation report changes and a SSB is  justified.   A
complete copy of this response is appended 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.  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 applicant’s  submission,  including  the
statements from the rating chain & MLR president, we  are  unpersuaded
that the contested reports should be  altered.   His  contentions  are
duly noted; however, in our opinion, the Air Force office  of  primary
responsibility  (HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP)  has  adequately   addressed   these
contentions  and  we  are  in  agreement  with  their  recommendation.
Inasmuch as the OPR and PRF in question were  prepared  in  accordance
with the  governing  Air  Force  instructions,  we  find  them  to  be
appropriately filed in the applicant’s records.  We have reviewed  the
comments by the evaluators of the contested reports and  do  not  find
their statements provide an adequate basis to  recommend  approval  of
the requested relief.  Further, it is our opinion that the  statements
provided in support of the appeal constitute retrospective assessments
of the applicant’s performance and potential, written as  well-meaning
after-the-fact attempts  to  enhance  the  applicant’s  promotability.
Such motivations are not  sufficient  to  support  findings  that  the
reports themselves are erroneous or unjust.  In view of  the  findings
that the contested OPR and PRF are neither unjust nor  inaccurate,  we
believe they should stand as written.  Therefore, applicant’s  request
to  have  the  contested  reports  amended  and  he   be   given   SSB
consideration 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 29 August 2001, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
                  Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Jul 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 30 Jul 01, w/atchs.




                                   FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
                                   Panel Chair