RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01459;01-02941
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00, 111.01

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In  two  separate  applications,  the  applicant  makes  the  following
requests:

        1.  The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered on him  for
the periods 3 Jun through 2 Jun 99 and 3 Jun 99 through    2 Jun 00  be
substituted with revised reports.

        2.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on him and
viewed by the CY00A (6 Nov  00)  central  colonel  selection  board  be
replaced with a revised PRF.

        3.  The Management Level  Review  Board  review  his  corrected
record to  consider  awarding  him  a  “Definitely  Promote”  promotion
recommendation.

        4.  He  receive  consideration  for  promotion  to  colonel  by
special selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A central  colonel  selection
board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His last two assignments (Landstuhl Army Regional  Medical  Center  and
Wright-Patterson AFB Medical Center) have different  command  structure
compared to  all  other  Air  Force  Medical  Centers.   The  promotion
selection board members probably did not realize the difference and may
have unjustly reviewed his record as inferior to his peers.

His records were not judged on the same plane as his peers due  to  the
difference  in  command  structure  and   therefore   job   title   and
responsibilities.  He has been working as a flight commander  with  all
the responsibilities, but not the job  title,  which  provided  him  an
unfair playing field compared to his peers.

In support of his appeal applicant has provided statements  of  support
from his rating chain  and  detailed  justification  for  the  proposed
changes to his OPRs and PRF.  He also provides a copy of  the  decision
by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to deny  his  request  to
replace his two OPRs.

The applicant’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at  Exhibit
A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a doctor serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 1 Apr 84.  The applicant was considered, but  not  selected
for promotion to colonel in the  primary  zone  by  the  CY00A  Central
Colonel Selection Board.  The remaining relevant  facts  pertaining  to
this case are contained in the evaluations prepared by the  appropriate
offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C, D, E, and F.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP in the advisory prepared for the first application  submitted
by the applicant  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  to
substitute  two  of  his  OPRs  with  revised  reports.   Although  the
evaluators support the applicant’s request, they have not provided  any
evidence to prove the reports are in error.  The applicant also did not
provide any  documentation  proving  Central  Selection  Board  members
unjustly reviewed the contested OPRs or were confused  by  the  command
structures.  The applicant has not proven that an  error  or  injustice
occurred.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO in their  evaluation  prepared  for  the  first  application
recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request  for  consideration  for
promotion by SSB.  Since AFPC/DPPP did not recommend  approval  of  his
request to substitute the contested OPRs, new Management  Level  Review
and SSB are not warranted.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPP in their  evaluation  prepared  for  the  applicant’s  second
application recommends denial of the applicant’s request to  substitute
his PRF with a revised PRF.  Although the Senior Rater  and  Air  Force
Nonline  Management  Level  Review   President   (MLRP)   support   the
applicant’s request, they have  not  provided  evidence  to  prove  the
original PRF contains errors.  PRFs are not erroneous or unfair because
the applicant believes they may have contributed  to  his  nonselection
for promotion.  Furthermore, the recommended PRF is  incomplete  as  it
has no recommendation marked in block IX, overall  recommendation,  nor
does  the  Senior  Rater  discuss  whether  the  change  to   the   PRF
necessitates a change from a "Promote" (P)  recommendation  to  a  “DP”
recommendation.  The  process  for  appealing  this  PRF  is  therefore
incomplete, and should be revised through AFMC.

The applicant’s concern is the Central Selection Board did not  realize
he was serving in a Flight Commander  equivalent  position.   Yet,  his
replacement PRF changes every line of his PRF.  He claims that the  new
PRF contains information “not previously known.”  With the exception of
the duty title, this is not the case.  As  mentioned  in  the  advisory
concerning the applicant’s request to reword two  OPRs,  the  applicant
provides no evidence that any of the information on the replacement PRF
was “previously unknown.”

Finally, officers are required by AFI 36-2406 to receive their  PRF  30
days prior to the CSB.  This process is designed to allow officers  and
their  Senior  Raters  the  required  time  to  identify  and   correct
significant errors before the Central Selection Board.   The  applicant
provides no evidence that the wording  of  his  duty  title  originally
concerned him or his Senior Rater.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPO in their evaluation  prepared  for  the  second  application
recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.  They  concur  with  the
findings contained in the second evaluation prepared by AFPC/DPPP.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the evaluations prepared for his first application,  the
applicant requested that his case be temporarily  withdrawn  until  Jan
02.  He indicated his intent to interview the members of his  selection
board and MLRB to determine if they  unjustly  reviewed  the  contested
OPRs and whether they were confused by the command structure.  He  also
advised that he had a pending appeal before the ERAB to substitute  his
PRF for the CY00 board and indicated his intent to appeal  his  PRF  to
the AFBCMR if the ERAB denied his appeal.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

In response to the evaluations  prepared  in  response  to  his  second
application, the applicant  requested  that  his  case  be  temporarily
withdrawn.  He again indicated his intent to interview the  members  of
his MLRB and central selection board.  In response to  the  comment  in
AFPC/DPPP’s evaluation that his PRF was incomplete, he  indicates  that
his PRF is not incomplete.  His original PRF met a MLRB at Randolph for
consideration of a “DP,” therefore the original PRF was not marked with
the promotion recommendation until the  MLRB  made  its  decision.   He
states that he is requesting consideration by the MLRB and then an  SSB
by the central selection board.

Finally, he indicates that his senior rater did not know  much  of  the
information on the new PRF until it was brought to his  attention.   To
him, the new information was “previously unknown.”  This  includes  the
fact that he was in a flight commander equivalent position  for  nearly
three years at Landstuhl before being assigned to Wright-Patterson AFB.
 He indicates that  the  entire  problem  is  based  on  the  confusion
produced from the many  duty  titles  in  the  "Object  Medical  Group"
command structure without strict standardization throughout all medical
centers and regional hospitals.  He  further  indicates  that  the  Air
Force Surgeon is looking  at  solution  to  problems  with  the  object
medical group.

The applicant also asked that his separate applications  to  substitute
his OPRs and PRF be decided together.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit K.

On 7 Mar 02, the applicant advised the Board to proceed with processing
both of his applications before the Board.  He advised that he  has  no
further information to provide.   Also,  after  discussion  with  legal
counsel and Randolph AFB personnel, he determined that there is no  way
for him to interview the promotion board members to see  if  they  were
aware of the inequalities in the objective  medical  group  system  and
also between the Air Force and  the  Army  hospital  structures.     He
requests that he be given a formal hearing and states that he will  not
have legal counsel.

The complete response is at Exhibit M.

_______________________________________________________________

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 regarding the  applicant’s
requests to substitute the OPRs closing out 2 Jun 99 and 2 Jun 00  with
revised reports, to substitute the PRF rendered on him reviewed by  the
CY00A central colonel selection board with a revised PRF, and  to  have
his records reviewed by the MLRB to consider awarding him a “Definitely
Promote” promotion recommendation.   After  reviewing  the  applicant’s
complete submission, we are not persuaded that the information included
in the revised OPRs and PRF was not available when they were originally
accomplished.  In fact, there does not appear to  be  new  information,
rather just a rewrite of the OPRs and PRF in an  attempt  to  embellish
them after the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.  To  allow  such
an action would undermine the promotion system and not be fair  to  the
other officers considered and not selected  for  promotion.   Regarding
the applicant’s request to have the MLRB review his corrected record to
consider awarding him a “DP” promotion recommendation,  we  agree  with
the  evaluation  done  by  AFPC/DPPP  that  it   is   the   applicant’s
responsibility to pursue this through his Major Command.  Therefore, in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting this part of the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding  our  recommendation  as  stated  above,  we   were
persuaded by the support the applicant received from his  rating  chain
that the two contested OPRs and PRF may not have clearly indicated  the
level of responsibility of the applicant and how his position  compared
to equivalent positions at differently structured medical centers.   As
such, we believe that the OPRs  and  PRF  should  only  be  revised  to
incorporate those lines that state that  the  applicant  was  a  flight
commander equivalent.  Therefore, we  recommend  that  the  applicant’s
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

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 issues 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 to show that:

        1.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report rendered for the
period 3 Jun 98 through 2 Jun 99 be amended as follows:

              a.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and Responsibilities, line 1, changed to  read  “Manages  Flight
equivalent  clinic  in  second  largest  AF  medical  center;   medical
oversight of therapy clinics.”

              b.  Section VII,  Additional  Rater  Overall  Assessment,
Line 1, changed to read “Flight Commander equivalent in 2d  busiest  AF
Orthopedic service; outstanding leadership demonstrated.”

        2.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report rendered for the
period 3 Jun 99 through 2 Jun 00 be amended as follows:

              a.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and Responsibilities, line 1, changed to read “Flight  Commander
equivalent; supervises 8 providers/14 technicians/7 civilians in  three
clinical elements.”

              b.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and  Responsibilities,  line  6,  changed  to  read  “ADDITIONAL
DUTIES: Rapid Response Surgical  Mobility  Team  Chief;  Deputy  Flight
Medical Director.”

              c.  Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, Line 1, changed
to read “Finest  Orthopedic  Flight  Commander  equivalent  I’ve  seen!
Leadership his hallmark, excellence the norm!”

              d.  Section VII,  Additional  Rater  Overall  Assessment,
Line 1, changed to read “Phenomenal Flight Commander  equivalent  leads
over 30 personnel/3 clinical elements.  Lapped his peers!”

        3.  The Promotion Recommendation Form prepared  for  the  CY00A
central colonel selection board be amended as follows:

              a.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and Responsibilities, line 1, changed to read “Flight  Commander
equivalent; supervises 8 providers/14 technicians/7 civilians in  three
clinical elements.”

              b.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and  Responsibilities,  line  6,  changed  to  read  “ADDITIONAL
DUTIES: Rapid Response Surgical  Mobility  Team  Chief;  Deputy  Flight
Medical Director.”

              c.  Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, Line 1, changed
to  read  “Leader/warrior  of  the  new  millennium!   Firewall  Flight
Commander equivalent last two medical centers!”

It is further  recommended  that  his  record,  to  include  the  above
corrected Officer  Performance  Reports  and  Promotion  Recommendation
Form, be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a  Special
Selection Board for the CY00A Central Colonel Selection Board.

It is also recommended that his record, to include the above  corrected
Officer Performance Reports, be considered for promotion to  the  grade
of colonel by a Special Selection Board for  the  CY01A  Central  Conel
Selection Board.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Numbers  01-01459
and 01-02941 in Executive Session on 9 April 2002, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 01, w/atchs;
                 DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Jul 01.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Nov 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Nov 01.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jul 01.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 30 Jul 01.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Aug 01.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Dec 01.
     Exhibit K.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 20 Dec 01.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, 31 Dec 01.
     Exhibit M.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 7 Mar 02.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 01-02941


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:

        1.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report rendered for the
period 3 Jun 98 through 2 Jun 99 be amended as follows:

              a.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and Responsibilities, line 1, changed to  read  “Manages  Flight
equivalent  clinic  in  second  largest  AF  medical  center;   medical
oversight of therapy clinics.”

              b.  Section VII,  Additional  Rater  Overall  Assessment,
Line 1, changed to read “Flight Commander equivalent in 2d  busiest  AF
Orthopedic service; outstanding leadership demonstrated.”

        2.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report rendered for the
period 3 Jun 99 through 2 Jun 00 be amended as follows:

              a.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and Responsibilities, line 1, changed to read “Flight  Commander
equivalent; supervises 8 providers/14 technicians/7 civilians in  three
clinical elements.”

              b.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and  Responsibilities,  line  6,  changed  to  read  “ADDITIONAL
DUTIES: Rapid Response Surgical  Mobility  Team  Chief;  Deputy  Flight
Medical Director.”

              c.  Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, Line 1, changed
to read “Finest  Orthopedic  Flight  Commander  equivalent  I’ve  seen!
Leadership his hallmark, excellence the norm!”

              d.  Section VII,  Additional  Rater  Overall  Assessment,
Line 1, changed to read “Phenomenal Flight Commander  equivalent  leads
over 30 personnel/3 clinical elements.  Lapped his peers!”

        3.  The Promotion Recommendation Form prepared  for  the  CY00A
central colonel
board be amended as follows:

              a.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and Responsibilities, line 1, changed to read “Flight  Commander
equivalent; supervises 8 providers/14 technicians/7 civilians in  three
clinical elements.”

              b.  Section III, Job Description,  Item  2,  Key  Duties,
Tasks, and  Responsibilities,  line  6,  changed  to  read  “ADDITIONAL
DUTIES: Rapid Response Surgical  Mobility  Team  Chief;  Deputy  Flight
Medical Director.”

              c.  Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, Line 1, changed
to  read  “Leader/warrior  of  the  new  millennium!   Firewall  Flight
Commander equivalent last two medical centers!”

      It is further directed that his record, to include the above
corrected Officer Performance Reports and Promotion Recommendation
Form, be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a
Special Selection Board for the CY00A Central Colonel Selection
Board.

      It is also directed that his record, to include the above
corrected Officer Performance Reports, be considered for promotion
to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY01A
Central Colonel Selection Board.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency