RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00229
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance  Report (OPR) rendered  for  the period 15 Apr
94 through 14 Apr 95 be  declared  void;  and  he  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR in question was  written  by  someone  outside  of  his  usual
supervisory chain; the assessment of his  performance  was  inaccurate
and unflattering and was inconsistent with other JAG  officers'  OPRs.
He also states that the report was not processed properly  because  it
was processed on the wrong form; and the OPR was written  without  any
input from him.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by the calendar year (CY)  CY99A,  CY99B,  CY00A
and CY01B central selection boards.

Applicant’s last ten OPRs reflect "Meets Standards."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant alleges that the OPR was written as
a Change of Rater (CRO) but was actually  labeled  on  the  report  as
annual.  The reporting period was 15 Apr 94 thru 14 Apr 95,  there  is
no evidence to indicate a CRO report was required.

When the applicant's OPR  was  written,  the  requirement  to  conduct
performance feedback was for lieutenants and  captains.   It  was  not
required for majors through colonels until Oct 95.

In most instances  a  deputy  staff  judge  advocate  (SJA)  would  be
supervised by an  SJA  when  situations  dictate,  however,  the  wing
commander may write the report as the rater.  The  applicant  has  not
provided any statements of support from  his  rating  chain  or  other
individuals in his rating chain when the report was  signed.   Without
the support of his rating chain DPPPE can only conclude the report was
written as accurate.  Furthermore, a report is not erroneous or unfair
because the ratee believes the report contributed  to  a  nonselection
for promotion or may impact future promotion or career  opportunities.
DPPPE recommends denying the requested relief.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings of DPPPE and states  that  SSB
consideration is not warranted and they have nothing further  to  add.
Based on the evidence provided,  they  recommend  the  application  be
denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
5 Apr 02, for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, the Board  majority  is  unpersuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  Applicant's contentions are duly  noted;  however,
the  Board  majority  does  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did  not  provide  any
evidence as to why the report is not an  accurate  reflection  of  his
performance.  Nor has he provided any documentation  from  his  rating
chain in support of his request.  Without the support from his  rating
chain; therefore, we must  assume  that  the  report  in  question  is
accurate as written.  In view of the  foregoing,  the  Board  majority
finds no compelling  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  the  requested
relief.

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  issue(s)  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00229 in Executive Session on May 22, 2002, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
            Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
            Ms. Martha Maust, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended denying the  application.  Ms.
Maust voted to grant correcting the records but she does not desire to
submit a Minority Report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Mar 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Mar 02
      Exhibit E. Letter,SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.




                       ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                       Panel Chair






AFBCMR 02-00229





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT, SSN

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency