RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02040

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The 16th AF Intel Officer of the Year 1990 award comments contained in
his 19 Jun 92 Training Report (TR) be removed and added to his  4  Mar
91 Officer Performance Report (OPR), and he receive Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of major for  the
Calendar Year (CY) 95A (5 Jun 95) central major selection  board,  and
the CY 99B (30 Nov 99), and  CY00A  (28  Nov  00)  central  lieutenant
colonel selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested 4 Mar 91 OPR  is  incomplete  and  does  not  accurately
portray his true record of performance or  potential.   The  applicant
states that absence of the award on the OPR along with the absence  of
rater comments regarding his overall performance ranking  as  compared
to peers, is unjust and unfair.  During the earlier Air Force appeals,
he received only partial approval; award erroneously entered on Jun 92
training report, corrected rater comments disallowed on  Mar  91  OPR.
According to new evidence, the award  should  be  correctly  reflected
with corrected rater comments on the Mar 91 OPR.  In  support  of  the
appeal, applicant submits letters from his previous raters at the time
the OPR was written explaining the error and  recommending  corrective
action.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 Sep 96.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of major by the CY95A Selection Board.  He was selected for  promotion
to the grade of major by the CY96A Central Selection  Board.   He  was
considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant
colonel Below-the-Zone (BPZ) by the  99B  Central  Board  and  In-the-
Promotion Zone (IPZ) by the 00A Central Board.

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec
97.  The Evaluation Reports Appeals Board  (ERAB)  partially  approved
the applicant’s initial request on 8 Mar 96.  The  ERAB  directed  the
award be placed in the 19 Jun 92 TR.  The  applicant  filed  a  second
appeal requesting the award be removed from  the  19  Jun  92  TR  and
placed on the 4 Mar 91 OPR.  The appeal was  returned  without  action
because the applicant did not provide all previous  appeal  documents.
The ERAB was unable to  obtain  a  copy  because  the  case  file  was
destroyed in 1999.

Applicant’s OPR profile since 1990, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  4 Mar 90        Meets Standards (MS)
                 10 Aug 90        Training Report (TR)
            *     4 Mar 91                   MS
            *    19 Jun 92        Training Report (TR)
                 19 Jun 93                   MS
                 17 Jan 94                   MS
            **   15 Aug 94                   MS
                 15 Jul 95                   MS
                  4 Dec 95                   MS
                  4 Dec 96                   MS
                 17 Jul 97                   MS
                  7 Aug 98                   MS
             ***  7 Aug 99                   MS
             ****       2 Aug 00                   MS
                  6 Jun 01                   MS

*    Contested Reports
**   Top report on file at time of CY95A Maj selection board.
***  Top report on file at time of CY99B Lt Col selection board
         (BPZ).
**** Top report on file at time of CY00A Lt Col selection board.
       (IPZ)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  The  memorandum  from  HQ  AFPC/DPPPAE
(ERAB) states, “Addition of the  Intelligence  award  to  the  Mar  91
report is inappropriate since the award was clearly announced  “after”
the report’s close date; its proper placement,  with  the  evaluator,s
concurrence, would be in the 19 Jun 92 training report.

The applicant provided memorandums from the rater and additional rater
stating the  command  announced  the  award  in  early  January  1991.
However, the applicant did not provide the official notification  date
to substantiate when the award was announced or  an  explanation  from
the evaluators stating why it was not originally included on the OPR.

In  addition,  the  proposed  comments  also  include  stratification,
Professional Military Education (PME), and job  recommendations.   The
evaluators do not explain why these comments were not on the  original
OPR.  Many OPRs can be rewritten to provide stratification  or  to  be
made stronger; however, the time to do this is before  the  evaluation
becomes a matter of record.  Willingness by  evaluators  to  change  a
report is not a valid reason unless there is clear evidence  of  error
or injustice.

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

AFPC/DPPPO states that based on the evidence provided, they  recommend
denial of applicant’s request.

The application is untimely.  The applicant has  one  nonselection  to
the grade of major by the  P0495A  central  selection  board  and  one
nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0500A  central
selection board.  They concur with the findings in the  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE
advisory, and have  nothing  further  to  add.   Since  that  advisory
recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and provided  a  response  with
attachments, which is attached as Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded the applicant should be considered for promotion by SSB  for
the CY95A, central major selection board  nor  the  CY99B  (below-the-
zone), and CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection boards with  the
requested change to his  record.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force  evaluations.  We note  the  award  was  on  the  1992  Training
Report, therefore, we are persuaded the selection board was  aware  of
the award.  The applicant has not demonstrated that the  ommission  of
the award, from the 4 Mar 91 OPR was the basis  for  his  nonselection
for promotion.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our  decision
that the applicant has failed  to  sustain  his  burden  that  he  has
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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 1 November 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Aug 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Aug 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
      Exhibit F. Applicant's response, dated 9 Oct 01.



      FREDERICK R. BEAMAN, III
      Panel Chair