RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01479
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY01A Colonel Medical  Service
Corp (MSC) Central Selection Board be corrected to reflect his correct  duty
title and that he receive Special Selection Board  (SSB)  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of colonel for  the  Calendar  Year  CY01A  Selection
Board.

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)  for  the  CY01A  Colonel  (MSC)
Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His duty title in  the  duty  history  section  of  his  Personnel  RIP  was
inaccurate when it met the CY01A colonel  board.   The  duty  title  (Health
Service Administrator) is nondescript and void of substance, the type  often
given  to  company   grade   officers   as   they   progress   through   the
learning/development process.  In his case, it likely conjured an  image  of
movement from a  very  responsible  position  (Command)  to  one  much  less
responsible; in effect a demotion.

In reference to the PRF, the original signed and submitted PRF was  returned
to the senior rater by  AFPC,  reportedly  because  “illegal  phrases”  were
used.  He was told  its  return  arrived  while  his  senior  rater  was  on
Temporary Duty (TDY).  Reportedly, replacement language was crafted for  the
senior rater by a staff person.  It  was  resubmitted  to  AFPC  immediately
upon his return.  The change in language communicated a  less  powerful  and
positive message from  the  first  PRF.   The  reaccomplished  PRF  was  not
provided to his supervisor  or  him  until  the  middle  of  February.   The
combination of the revised PRF and the above error in his record  seemed  to
create an impression of his career that made  his  record  less  competitive
than its value and contribution would suggest.



In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
copies of his Officer  Surf,  dated  13  March  2001  and  2 May  2001,  the
original and revised Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for  the  P0601A
Board.

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
lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by the CYO1A Colonel Central Selection Board, which  convened  on  8
January 2001.

The applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the  CY01A  reflected  the
duty title of Health Service Administrator.   The  Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF) for that board reflected a duty title of Deputy Program  Manager,
Defense Medical Logistics Standard Support (DMLSS).

OPR profile since 1995 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  9 Jun 95              Meets Standards (MS)
                  5 Dec 95                   (MS)
                  5 Dec 96                   (MS)
                  5 Dec 97                   (MS)
                  4 Sep 98                   (MS)
                    4 Sep 99                 (MS)
                 # 26 Jun 00                 (MS)

#Top Report for the CY01A Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The   Superintendent,   Assignment   Procurement/Joint   Officer    Matters,
AFPC/DPAPP1, reviewed this application and states that at the  time  of  the
CY01A  selection  board  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS)  reflected  the
incorrect duty title.  However, currently the PDS reflects the correct  duty
title for the period of 30 July 2000 to present.






They reviewed the officer’s  source  documents,  and  assignment  folder  to
determine if a correction was warranted.  Based upon source documents,  they
concur with the correction of applicant’s  duty  title.   The  records  were
corrected prior to the receipt of this request.

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

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPOO, also  reviewed
this  application  and  states   that   AFI   36-2501,   paragraph   6.3.2.2
specifically states, “Do not  have  an  SSB  if,  by  exercising  reasonable
diligence, the officer should have discovered  the  error  or  omission  and
could have taken corrective action before  the  originally  scheduled  board
convened.”  In this case, the applicant  has  not  provided  proof  that  he
“exercised reasonable diligence”  to  correct  these  errors  prior  to  his
promotion board, but waited until receiving nonselect counseling.

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

The Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation,  Recognition  Division,  Directorate  of
Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPPE,  also  reviewed  this  application
and states that the wording of his new PRF was,  in  fact,  changed  by  his
senior rater at their request.  The original draft  contained  phrases  that
are  specifically  forbidden  by  Air  Force  Instruction   (AFI)   36-2406,
paragraph 3.7.20, “…phrases such as “top 5% officer” or “clearly  a  top  1%
SNCO” are inappropriate because  the  evaluator  does  not  have  first-hand
knowledge of all Air Force  officers  or  Senior  Non-Commissioned  Officers
(SNCOs)”;  and  Table  8.1,  note  4e;   “Do  not  comment  on  ratings   or
recommendations from prior AF Forms 709.”

While the applicant does not specifically make the  contention,  because  he
may have received his final version of his  PRF  in  February  2001,  it  is
clear he would have been denied his right to review that PRF  prior  to  the
promotion board as required by AFI 36-2406, paragraph  8.1.4.1.7.   However,
he provides no  evidence  to  support  his  contention.   Furthermore,  they
believe the applicant was not denied any right to review or respond  to  the
changes since the removed wording was required to be removed  per  the  AFI.
The legal facts and wording of the new PRF mirrored those  of  the  original
PRF provided to the applicant 30 days prior to  the  promotion  board.   The
wording removed from the PRF - “BTZ DP” could only be removed, not  altered,
as there is no legal way to communicate that  information  on  a  PRF.   The
altered wording-from “top 1% officer” to “#2 of his  MSCs”  is  clearly  the
opinion of the senior rater,  and  provides  no  realistic  opportunity  for
comment by the applicant.

The strength of the  new  wording  on  the  applicant’s  final  PRF  is  the
responsibility of the senior rater.   He  chose  the  wording  he  felt  was
appropriate.  The fact that the PRF could have been  written  with  stronger
words does not constitute basis for approving a rewrite.  Even  if  it  did,
the applicant provides no new wording, approved by  both  his  senior  rater
and MLR president as required per AFI 36-2401,  paragraph  A1.6.2.2.   Since
the original PRF  contains  prohibited  statements,  they  cannot  recommend
approval of its use.   Nor  would  they  recommend  approval  of  any  other
recommended change  to  the  subject  wording,  as  no  rationale  could  be
provided consistent with the requirements of AFI 36-2401  for  strengthening
an accurately  written  PRF.   They  recommend  no  changes  be  allowed  to
applicant’s PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 July 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within  thirty  (30)  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting  his  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB) for the CY01A Central Colonel Selection Board  be  corrected  to
reflect his correct duty title and that he receive Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration for promotion to the  grade  of  colonel  for  the  CY01
Selection Board.  In this regard, HQ AFPC/DPAPP1 states  that  although  the
applicant’s duty title has now been corrected, at  the  time  of  the  CY01A
Board the applicant’s duty title was incorrect in the Personnel Data  System
(PDS) and  was  therefore  incorrect  on  the  OSB.   Therefore,  the  Board
majority recommends that the applicant’s records be corrected to the  extent
indicated below.

4.    In  addition,  the  applicant’s  request  to  apparently  replace  the
revised Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  CY01A  Colonel
Selection Board  with  the  original  PRF  is  duly  noted.   The  applicant
contends that the revised PRF “communicated a  less  powerful  and  positive
message  from  the  first  PRF.”   However,  the  majority  notes  that  the
applicant did not provide supporting statements from  his  senior  rater  or
the MLR president; rather, he only provided the  original  PRF  and  revised
PRF which was changed by the senior rater at the  request  of  AFPC  because
the original PRF contained phrases that are not  allowed  by  the  governing
AFI.  Other  than  the  applicant’s  own  assertions,  the  Board  finds  no
evidence that the revised PRF is in error.  Therefore,  we  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of HQ AFPC/DPPPE 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 this portion  of
the applicant’s request.

5.    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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected by amending the Officer Selection Brief  prepared
for the Calendar Year 2001A Central Colonel Board to reflect  a  duty  title
of “Director, OPS/Reengineering DMLSS,” effective 30 July 2000, rather  than
Health Service Administrator.

It is recommended that he be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by Special Selection Board  for  the  Calendar  Year  2001A  Central
Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 5 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
            Mr. Clarence D. Long, Member
            Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as  recommended.
 Mr. Long voted to deny the application and does  not  desire  to  submit  a
minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.





   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 5 June 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 2 July 2001.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 July 2001
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 July 2001.




                 GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                 Panel Chair




AFBCMR 01-01479





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 by amending the Officer Selection Brief prepared
for the Calendar Year 2001A Central Colonel Board to reflect a duty title
of “Director, OPS/Reengineering DMLSS,” effective 30 July 2000, rather than
Health Service Administrator.

          It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001A
Central Colonel Selection Board.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency