RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03503
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), with a close-out date of 6 May 01  and
his amended Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), receive  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to major.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive a fair  shake  at  the  major  promotion  board  for  two
reasons; the board should have been in a position to consider his  OPR  with
a close-out date of 6 May 01 and his PRF was deficient because  it  did  not
provide the grade or service branch of his senior rater.  In  addition,  his
PRF incorrectly referred to him as a “first tour USAF Chaplain.”

In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement  from  his
current senior rater; OPR tracking sheet, OPR closing 6 May  2001,  and  the
original and amended PRFs.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reveals that on 2 April  1989,
the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the  Air  Force,
Chaplain  Candidate.   After  his  successful  completion  of  the  required
training, he was assigned to duties as a Chaplain in the Air  Force  Reserve
and Air National Guard until 2 January 1997, when,  having  been  discharged
from the Air National Guard, he was voluntarily ordered to  extended  active
duty in the grade of captain, with a date of rank of 8 August 1993.  He  was
considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade  of  major  by  the
CY01A central major selection board, which convened on 18 June 2001.

Applicant’s OPR profile since promotion  to  the  grade  of  captain  is  as
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

                 31 Aug 89(NON-EAD)     TRAINING REPORT
                 27 SEP 90        TRAINING REPORT
                 1 SEP 89 – 26 MAY 91        NO REPORT RENDERED
                 09 APR 92   MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
                 09 APR 93              MS
                 09 APR 94              MS
                 09 APR 95              MS
                 09 APR 96              MS
                 10 APR 96 – 1 JAN 97        NO REPORT RENDERED
                 01 AUG 97 (EAD)             MS
                 01 AUG 98              MS
                 01 AUG 99              MS
                 06 MAY 00              MS
                 06 MAY 01*             MS

* - OPR for SSB consideration.  This report was indorsed by  the  rater  and
additional rater on 6 May 2001, and by the reviewer on 11 September 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends the application  be  partially  granted.   DPPP  states
that the applicant’s OPR closing 6 May 01 was not required for  the  18  Jun
01 central selection board.  DPPP states that in  accordance  with  AFI  36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, “OPRs on EAD officers are  due
to MAJCOMs no later than 60 days after closeout.”   Therefore,  the  OPR  in
question was not required to be in his Officer Selection Record (OSR)  until
5 Jul 01 and the OPR closing 6 May 00 made his record complete  for  the  18
Jun 01 CSB.  DPPP further states that the proposed  PRF  for  inclusion  was
totally re-written, and there is no  supportive  documentation  provided  by
the management level review  president.   Appeals  to  rewrite  Section  IV,
Promotion Recommendation, simply to include different, but previously  known
or  documented  accomplishments  will  not   be   approved,   states   DPPP.
Additionally, DPPP states that the applicant’s request  for  correction  was
for Section X, Senior Rater, to include the rank and branch  of  service  of
the senior rater and in Section IV, line 9 from, “first tour USAF  Chaplain”
to “second active duty tour.”  DPPP recommends denial for an  SSB  based  on
the OPR not being available for the CY01A CSB.  DPPP recommends approval  to
correct the minor administrative error in Section X of the  PRF  of  record,
to include the senior rater’s grade and branch of service.

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPO  states  that  the
applicant has one nonselection to the grade of  major  and  since  AFPC/DPPP
recommends  denial  on  the  OPR  inclusion  for  an  SSB;  therefore,   SSB
consideration is  not  warranted.   DPPPO  further  states  that  while  the
request to add the missing Senior Rater information was  approved  by  DPPP,
these administrative changes do not warrant consideration by an SSB.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the advisory opinions and argues that the  basis  for
his appeal was not one of “requirement” but rather of  “necessity”  to  more
fairly compete with other captains for selection  to  major  and  bases  his
argument on governing Air Force directives.   He  further  states  that  all
relevant information regarding an officer’s  performance,  to  include  most
recent performance,  should  be  taken  into  account  when  considered  for
promotion.  Applicant states that material error in his PRF is  evident  and
neglects “very important” performance factors  as  indicated  in  AFPAM  36-
2506, You and Your Promotions - The Air  Force  Officer  Promotion  Program.
He further states that the writer  of  the  PRF  does  not  use  information
available to him, or does not have all pertinent  information  available  to
him to include a  pending  OPR,  leaving  the  central  selection  board  to
evaluate a PRF for a captain whose “very  important”  performance  has  been
left  off  the  evaluation  form.   Applicant  summarizes  his  rebuttal  by
recommending an SSB be given the opportunity to review his package with  the
new PRF.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, 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 with  respect  to  the
applicant’s request for SSB consideration to demonstrate  the  existence  of
error or injustice.

    a.  The applicant asserts that the absence of  OPR  closing  6 May  2001
was an error and therefore, he should receive an SSB with the  inclusion  of
the report in his selection record.  We disagree.   While  it  may  be  that
local policy required the OPR be filed in his unit records within  30  days,
the governing AFI provided that the contested report was not due to file  in
the officer selection record until 5 July 2001.  In  fact,  the  report  was
not signed by the evaluators until August/September  2001,  well  after  the
selection board in question  had  adjourned.   We  are  unpersuaded  by  the
evidence provided, including the supportive  statement  by  the  applicant’s
senior rater, that the evaluators intended that the report be expedited  for
entry into his selection record on or before 18 June 2001.  In view  of  the
above, we find no basis on which to favorably  consider  changing  the  date
the OPR in question was filed in his selection record and for  consideration
by an SSB on this basis.

    b.  The applicant requests substitution  of  a  recaccomplished  PRF  in
place of his PRF prepared for consideration by the CY 01A  Majors  Selection
Board.  The reasons asserted by the applicant for this request are that  his
senior rater’s rank and branch of service were not included in Section X  of
the report (the officer’s signature block) and because, in the body  of  the
report, he is incorrectly referred to  as  a  “first  tour  USAF  Chaplain.”
However, in addition to the correction of the former error and the  deletion
of the latter, the information contained  in  the  promotion  recommendation
section of the reaccomplished report is a complete revision of the  original
report.  No explanation for this revision has been provided  by  either  the
senior rater or the applicant.  We are therefore left  with  the  impression
that  the  rewritten  PRF  represents  a  retrospective  judgment   of   the
applicant’s performance and  demonstrated  potential  by  his  senior  rater
which does  not  provide  an  appropriate  basis  for  the  removal  of  the
contested PRF and the substitution of the  rewritten  report.   Accordingly,
in view of the above and in the absence of evidence showing that the  senior
rater did not have access to adequate  information  on  which  to  base  his
assessment at the time he prepared the PRF in question, we have no basis  on
which to favorably consider the applicant’s request for removal of  the  PRF
of record and substitution of the reaccomplished report.

    c.  As to the applicant’s contentions regarding the phrase, “first  tour
USAF Chaplain” and the absence of his senior  rater’s  rank  and  branch  of
service,  since  these  matters  are  errors,  we  believe  they  should  be
corrected by deleting the  reference  to  the  applicant  as  a  first  tour
Chaplain  and  adding  the  senior  rater’s  rank  and  branch  of  service.
However, we do not believe replacing the deleted  phrase  with  one  stating
that the applicant was on his second tour of active duty would, in any  way,
be beneficial to the applicant, especially since  such  a  substitution  was
not specifically recommended by the senior  rater.   We  are  not  persuaded
that the foregoing changes to  the  contested  PRF  caused  the  applicant’s
records  to  be  so  erroneous  or  misleading  that  the  duly  constituted
selection board was unable to make  a  reasonable  determination  concerning
his promotability in relation to his peers.  In other words, the  impact  of
the above-cited errors oh  his  promotion  opportunity  was,  in  our  view,
harmless.  Therefore, we do  not  find  these  corrections,  alone,  warrant
favorable consideration of his request for an SSB.

    d.  Accordingly, in view of the above, the  applicant’s  records  should
be corrected only to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected by  altering  the  Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar  Year  2001A  (CY01A)  Central
Major Selection Board as follows:

      a.  Delete “- met the challenge of a first-tour  USAF  Chaplain”  from
the last line in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation.

    b.  Add “, Colonel, USAF” to the first line in Section X, Senior Rater.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 12 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 14 Feb 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 15 Mar 02.





                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR 01-03503




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 altering  the  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form  709,  prepared  for  the  Calendar  Year
2001A (CY01A) Central Major Selection Board as follows:

            a.  Delete “- met the challenge of a first-tour  USAF  Chaplain”
from the last line in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation.

            b.  Add “, Colonel, USAF”  to  the  first  line  in  Section  X,
Senior Rater.








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency