RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01835
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00; 111.01

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The closeout dates and respective signatures on his officer performance
reports (OPRs) closing out 12 Jul 96, 12 Jul  97,  and  12  Jul  98  be
corrected to reflect closeout dates of 31 May 96, 31 May 97, and 31 May
98 respectively.

The line in Section IV of his OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 that reads  “As
squadron commander, lauded by Group CC for flawless handling of  myriad
of personnel issues” be interchanged with the statement in Section  VII
that reads “Coordinated  over  100  short-notice  contingency  tasking;
insightfully balanced theater/worldwide needs.”

The first line in Section VII of his OPR closing out  12  Jul  96  that
reads “Superlative officer!  We gave John the tough jobs…he  never  let
us down…set numerous firsts in AIA” be  replaced  with  “DSMC  Advanced
Prog Mgmt Course star!  Extremely few selected for  acquisition’s  “Top
Gun” course.”

His duty history on his Officer Selection Brief be corrected to reflect
“Student, SOS”, 19 Mar 86-16 May 96, and “Student, DMSC.”

He be granted promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by  Special
Selection Board  (SSB)  starting  with  the  CY98B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board and that the correction previously approved  to
his 21 May 95 OPR by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) also be
considered as a basis for promotion consideration by SSB.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 should have closed out 31 May 96 based on
the closeout date of 21 May 95 of his previous report and the fact that
his rater assumed supervision on 2 Feb 96.  His rater had the necessary
120 days supervision as of 31 May 96 and it had already exceeded a year
since his last report.

His OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 started a domino effect that resulted  in
his next three reports closing out in July.  Consequently, when he  was
considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B (1 Jun  98)
central promotion board, an OPR documenting his most recent performance
was not on file.

Two of the lines in his 2 Jul 96 OPR are placed in the  wrong  sections
and could possibly  have  negatively  impacted  the  promotion  board’s
assessment of him.

His records  do  not  reflect  that  he  attended  the  Defense  System
Management College (DSMC), Advanced Program Management Course (APMC).

The applicant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 2 Jun 82.   A
profile of his  last  ten  OPRs  reflects  overall  ratings  of  “meets
standards.”  He was  considered  but  not  selected  for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel by the CY98B     (1 Jun  98),  CY99A  (19  Apr  99),
CY99B (30 Nov 99), and CY00A (28 Nov 00) selection boards.

The applicant submitted an appeal application to  the  ERAB  requesting
that his OPR closing out 21 May  95  be  corrected  to  reflect  Senior
Service School, Air War College, and promotion consideration by SSB for
the CY98B promotion selection board.  The ERAB approved the  correction
to the OPR, but denied his request for SSB.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  evaluated  this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.

It is apparent that an incorrect closeout date was discoverable at  the
time of the earlier contested report.  The applicant fails  to  provide
any reasonable explanation for waiting five years to come on  line  and
state the closeout should have been 31  May  96  not  12  Jul  96.   It
appears that not until promotion dates changed over a  year  later  did
applicant contest the closeout date of the report.

In the reaccomplished OPR closing out 31 May 96,  submitted  with  this
appeal, there is basically no new information,  just  a  more  eloquent
narrative.  It appears this  report  is  an  attempt  to  retroactively
enhance the applicant’s promotion potential.  The appeals process  does
not exist to improve promotion potential, but  to  correct  errors  and
injustice.

The applicant’s rater contends that the applicant’s attendance to  DMSC
was not included in his OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 because he thought an
AF Form 475 was going to  be  accomplished.   The  rules  for  Training
Reports to replace the AF Form 77 did not go into effect until Oct  96.
The applicant completed DMSC in Nov 95.  Although this information  was
not included in the OPR,  the  Senior  Rater  did  include  it  in  the
applicant’s PRF that was reviewed by the CY98B selection board.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotions, Appointments, &  Selective  Continuation
Branch, AFPC/DPPPO, also evaluated this application in regards  to  the
applicant’s request for promotion consideration to  lieutenant  colonel
by Special Selection Board and recommends denial.

They concur with the evaluation done by  AFPC/DPPPE  and  have  nothing
further to add.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations  by  stating  that
many assertions in them are either outright wrong  or  misleading.   He
provides in depth discussion of six statements that he takes  exception
to:

         a.  In  regards  to  AFPC/DPPPE’s   determination   that   the
application was not timely filed, the applicant indicates that when the
ERAB  corrected  his  May  95  OPR,  they  did  not   grant   him   SSB
consideration.  He was advised of this in 1999 and has  not  previously
appealed  that  decision.   Applicant  further   indicates   that   his
application is timely under the laws that govern the AFBCMR.

         b.  The  applicant  indicates  that  he  disagrees  with   the
statement that he fails  to  provide  any  reasonable  explanation  for
waiting five years  to  file  his  appeal.   He  points  out  that  his
commander indicates in  his  statement  that  when  the  applicant  was
provided his signed OPR in Jan 97, he immediately challenged the  error
with the Wing Director of Personnel.

        c.  The applicant further  indicates  that  he  disagrees  with
AFPC/DPPPE’s assessment that the proposed revised report closing out 31
May 96 is an attempt to retroactively enhance his promotion  potential.
He points out that he discussed the issue at length with  personnel  in
AFPC/DPPPE, and that  they  recommended  he  make  the  corrections  in
question as part of his application since he was  correcting  parts  of
the OPR anyway.  He further points  out  that  not  a  single  word  is
changed, but merely  interchanges  two  statements  so  they  are  more
accurately reflected in  the  appropriate  part  of  the  OPR,  thereby
preventing  the  prejudice  stemming  from  their  earlier   inaccurate
position.

        d.  The applicant indicates that AFPC/DPPPE’s  assessment  that
the AF Form 475 replaced the AF Form 77 in Oct 96 and that he completed
the course in Nov 95 actually supports his position in pointing out the
prejudicial irregularity in his record.  He states  that  the  critical
significance, promotion-wise, of having his  attendance  to  DSMC  APMC
documented elsewhere in his permanent record is undisputed.  It is also
undisputed that PRFs are not part on an individual’s permanent  record.
He further indicates that the fact that he did not have an AF Form  475
reflecting completion of DSMC APMC put him at a disadvantage  since  he
likely competed at his 1998 primary lieutenant colonel promotion  board
against individuals that had completed AF Form 475s  in  their  records
due to their completing DMSC APMC in Oct 96 or later due  to  a  policy
change.

        e.  The applicant takes issue with the statement that “although
this information was not included in the  OPR,  the  Senior  Rater  did
include it in his P0598B PRF.”  The fact that his  attendance  to  DMSC
APMC was not recorded anywhere in his permanent record,  but  reflected
in his PRF created an inconsistency between his  permanent  record  and
PRF.  These casts doubt over whether he ever attended  a  DMSC  course.
He states that he has been advised during promotion  briefings  and  by
individuals that have set on boards that any inconsistency between  the
PRF and permanent record is resolved with reference to the record.  The
applicant  also  addresses  issues  with  the   statement   that   “the
applicant’s rater contends that DMSC was not included in his Jul 96 OPR
because he thought an AF Form 475 was going to  be  accomplished.   The
rules for Training Reports to replace AF Form 77 did not go into effect
until Oct 96.”  The applicant points out that his commander  references
the policy change in his letter, not because of the exact date it  took
place, but to show there was a high  probability  he  competed  at  his
promotion board with individuals who had completed  DMSC  APMC  classes
after the policy change.

        f.  Finally, the applicant disagrees with AFPC/DPPPE’s  summary
statement “The applicant has not substantiated  the  contested  reports
were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators  based  on  knowledge
available  at  the  time.”   He  states  that  it   was   his   rater’s
responsibility to know whether an AF Form 77 or  475  was  the  correct
means of ensuring training such as DSMC APMC was properly reflected  in
his records.

The applicant’s complete response is 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 opinions  and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.   We  note  that  the  applicant’s
commander  states  that  there  was  no  appropriate  reason  for   the
applicant’s OPR to have closed out a month and a half after the correct
date, yet he does not clearly account for why it  did.   The  applicant
also contends that the change in closeout date effectively  caused  him
to have one less report for the CY98B promotion board to evaluate, thus
causing his full and complete record not to be evaluated.   We  do  not
find this argument credible since the CY98B promotion board convened on
1 Jun 98 leaving one day from a closeout date of  31  May  98  for  the
applicant’s report to be processed and on file.   Based  on  Air  Force
regulatory  guidance,  this  is  totally  unrealistic.    Further,   in
reviewing the dates of the successive promotion boards that  considered
the applicant, we do not find any disadvantage that was caused  by  the
closeout dates of his OPRs.  Therefore, we find no basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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 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 9 October 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Aug 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 27 Aug 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 25 Sep 01.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair