IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00569
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered  for  the  period     13
February 1996 through 12 February 1997 be declared  void  and  removed
from his records; and, directly promote him to the grade of lieutenant
colonel as  if  selected  by  the  CY98B  central  lieutenant  colonel
selection board.  If the Board determines not to directly promote  him
to lieutenant colonel, he requests they upgrade  his  CY98B  promotion
recommendation form (PRF)  to  reflect  a  “Definitely  Promote”  (DP)
promotion recommendation and grant him special selection  board  (SSB)
consideration by the CY98B board.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was inaccurate and unjust; along with  his  rater
being 6,000 miles from his duty station.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
statement from the rater and statements from individuals  outside  the
rating chain.

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 major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY98B  Central  Lieutenant   Colonel
Selection Board.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1991 through  1998
reflect meets standards on all performance factors.

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed the application and states that Air Force policy is  that  an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a  matter  of
record.  To effectively challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from
all the members of the rating chain, not only for  support,  but  also
for clarification/explanation.

In reference to the applicant contending  his  rater  did  not  obtain
input from others before finalizing the contested report,  they  state
that while Air Force policy does charge  a  rater  to  get  meaningful
information from the ratee and as many sources as possible, it is  the
rater’s ultimate responsibility to determine which accomplishments are
included on the OPR and whether or not it  is  necessary  for  him  to
gather additional information from other sources in order to render an
accurate assessment of the individual.  They  state,  the  applicant’s
OPR is not inaccurate or unfair simply because he believes it is.

They state  insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice in regard  to
the  applicant’s  request  for  direct  promotion  to  the  grade   of
lieutenant colonel.  They  state  an  officer  may  be  qualified  for
promotion, but, in the judgment of  a  selection  board,  vested  with
discretionary authority to make the selections, he may not be the best
qualified of those available  for  the  limited  number  of  promotion
vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been  a
selectee by the CY98B board, they believe  a  duly  constituted  board
applying the complete promotion criteria is in the  most  advantageous
position to render this vital determination.  They state  the  board’s
prerogative to do so should not be unsurped except under extraordinary
circumstances.  They further state, to grant a direct promotion  would
be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records
and also did not get promoted.

In reference to the  statement,  if  the  Board  determines  a  direct
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  is  inappropriate,  the
applicant requests they direct he receive  SSB  consideration  by  the
CY98B board with a “DP” promotion  recommendation  on  his  PRF,  they
state, the applicant did not provide the  required  support  from  his
senior rater or the Management Level Review  president  to  justify  a
change to the promotion recommendation on the CY98B PRF from “Promote”
to “Definitely Promote.”  They, therefore, would  be  opposed  to  the
Board upgrading the promotion recommendation on the  CY98B  PRF  to  a
“DP”  and  granting  him  SSB  consideration  by  the   CY98B   board.
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  the
advisory  opinion  is  disappointing   because   it   is   incomplete,
unreservedly defensive  of  the  officer  evaluation  system  and  the
selection process.  He states that had the report been submitted three
or four years earlier he would have an  opportunity  to  recover  with
additional OPRs on top before entering the promotion zone.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

Applicant submitted an additional response and states that his case is
an example of how it does not work well for officers  who  work  apart
from their supervisor.

He states that his chain of command had no opportunity  to  personally
observe his duty performance due to their separation.  Moreover,  they
did not request an assessment from  his  on-sight  supervisor  or  any
other official at the Embassy.  He states, therefore,  the  evaluation
of his performance, contributions to the unit’s mission and  promotion
potential were based upon incomplete information.

He states during his discussion by phone with his  squadron  commander
about the OPR, he asked  why  he  had  not  included  his  contracting
accomplishments.  He responded that there were  no  meaty  contracting
issues.  This was surprising since he (the applicant) had  spent  most
of his time negotiating and executing contracts  in  Denmark  and  the
United States for equipment, construction, supplies and  services  for
Thule Air Base totaling $60 million.

Regarding the commander’s 9 November memorandum, he states that he  is
disappointed that the commander elected to  disregard  the  statements
from two senior officials that have personal knowledge of the facts of
this case.  It  is  the  responsibility  of  all  evaluators  to  base
assessments on either personal observation or an evaluation from an on-
site supervisor.  It would appear, therefore, that in the interest  of
fairness and justice that the first hand views and judgment of the two
senior officials would have been sought when  the  OPR  was  initially
prepared.  He states that there is no indication  that  they  reviewed
such input when they considered this appeal.

He states that it is unfortunate that  his  selection  to  a  visible,
demanding and sensitive assignment that has historically  boosted  the
careers of previous commanders may ruin his.  He states that he  could
accept that result if it resulted from weak performance rather than  a
flawed evaluation.  He states  the  strong  statements  regarding  his
performance from his supervisor for his two-year tour in Denmark,  the
two senior officials clearly discredit the report’s accuracy.

In conclusion he states that if he  understood  correctly,  the  Board
will agree to change only the one sentence in block 6 in the OPR,  and
only if the chain of command agrees.  He states that this action would
not level the playing field and undo the damage the inaccurate OPR has
done to his career.  He requests,  therefore,  that  the  Board  again
review his appeal objectively and logically and render a decision that
will permit him to compete fairly for promotion with others  who  were
selected by the 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Board and:

      (1) Void the report  and  direct  his  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel along with his contemporaries on the June 1998 promotion list;
or

       (2)  Void  the  OPR,   direct   that   a   Definitely   Promote
recommendation be placed in his selection folder and place it before a
supplemental board  with  sample  records  from  the  1998  Lieutenant
Colonel Board.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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.  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
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.

________________________________________________________________


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 10 August 1999 and 2  February  2001,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
           Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
           Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 26 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dtd 15 Mar 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dtd 29 Mar 99.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dtd 8 Apr 99.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Additional Response, dtd 15 Jan 00,
               w/atchs.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL
                                   Panel Chair