RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00645
            INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “Narrative Only” Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared  for
consideration by the Calendar Year 1992B  (CY92B)  Below-The-Promotion
Zone (BPZ) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be  removed  and
replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by  the  CY92B
BPZ Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The governing Air Force Instruction  (AFI)  requires  that  “Narrative
Only” PRFs be completed 30 days prior to departure for a school  tour.
He departed from Travis Air Force Base (AFB) for England on 17 Dec 91.
 The original PRF stated that he was “unwilling to upgrade to aircraft
commander.”  That was  incorrect.   He  completed  aircraft  commander
upgrade in Sep 91.  It was also incorrect because it  stated  that  he
“applied for Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI).”  There was no  VSI
program in 1991 due to the Gulf War.  The program was not  established
until 1992.  He could not have applied  in  1991.   The  senior  rater
agreed that the PRF was incorrect.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  the
original and reaccomplished PRF, a personal statement, statements from
his former additional rater and senior rater, documentation pertaining
to his aircrew qualification, the VSI program, his appeals  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, and other  documents  associated  with  the
matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug  00.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 28 May 80.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1990 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Apr 90              Meets Standards
       7 Oct 90              Meets Standards
  #   7 Oct 91               Meets Standards
       3 Dec 92              Training Report
       3 Dec 93              Meets Standards
      20 Jul 94              Meets Standards
      20 Jul 95              Meets Standards
      24 Jun 96              Meets Standards
      19 May 97              Meets Standards
       1 Jun 98              Training Report
       1 Jun 99              Meets Standards
      22 May 00              Meets Standards
      22 May 01              Meets Standards

# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY92B  BPZ
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial of the applicant’s request.  They  noted
that the applicant’s Narrative Only PRF stated he  was  “unwilling  to
upgrade to aircraft commander” and that he “recently applied for VSI.”
 AFPC/DPPPE further noted that the  applicant  provided  documentation
for  his  upgrade  to  aircraft  commander.   He  also  provided   two
statements from his squadron commander who  insisted  that  while  the
applicant  did  ultimately  accept  training  for  upgrade,   he   was
originally resistant and desired to separate.  AFPC/DPPPE believes the
AFBCMR must therefore judge between the two statements,  as  the  fact
that the applicant completed the training does not  disprove  that  at
some point he showed  a  reluctance  to  accept  that  responsibility.
According to AFPC/DPPPE, raters must be able to consider reluctance to
accept  increased  responsibility  in  determination  of   evaluations
ratings.  If the squadron commander’s recollections are accurate,  his
recommendation to the senior rater was legitimate, making  the  senior
rater’s statements accurate.

AFPC/DPPPE  noted  the  documentation  provided   by   the   applicant
suggesting VSI was not implemented until  1992,  after  his  permanent
change of station (PCS) to England.  According to AFPC/DPPPE, VSI  was
implemented in Fiscal Year 1992 (FY92), making it available on  1  Oct
91, before the applicant was recommended for, or departed to his  next
assignment.  The squadron commander adequately refuted the applicant’s
allegation, stating, in essence, while the applicant  might  not  have
ultimately followed through with his effort to apply for VSI, the fact
remains he desired to separate and communicated such to his commander.


In  AFPC/DPPPE’s  view,  the  PRF  recommendation   was   accomplished
appropriately as a reflection of whether the applicant was prepared at
the time  for  the  responsibilities  and  challenges  that  accompany
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  four  years  below  the
zone.  The PRF was not a stain on  his  records,  as  alleged  by  the
applicant, since it was only used for the CY92B board.  It is not  now
an official part of his records, and will not be used  at  any  future
date  to  determine  his  suitability  for  promotion  or  assignment.
Rather, the PRF is a reflection  of  the  senior  rater’s  opinion  of
whether the applicant was ready at that time for promotion.

AFPC/DPPPE noted that while the applicant did not specifically mention
it, his earlier efforts through the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) included his desire to have his duty history altered  and  have
his duty  title  for  the  PRF  in  question  reflect,  “C-5  Aircraft
Commander.”  AFPC/DPPPE indicated that despite three denials  of  this
request and direction by the ERAB to  the  Military  Personnel  Flight
(MPF) to correct the applicant’s duty history to  reflect  the  proper
duty  title,  somehow,  the  duty  history  has  been  altered.    All
appropriate  documentation  available  at  or  near   the   time   the
applicant’s Narrative Only PRF was written validates he was not a  C-5
Aircraft Commander.  His Duty Air Force Specialty  Code  (DAFSC),  his
medal citation, and his OPR all list him as C-5 Pilot.  In  subsequent
ERAB efforts, the applicant attempted to  steer  a  solution  to  this
issue by proving he was “qualified”  for  the  duty  title.   However,
qualification for a duty title does not equate to holding the position
which would allow use of it on either an evaluation  form  or  a  duty
history.  AFPC/DPPPE stated that they could find no evidence that  the
applicant’s duty history change was approved through a formal  process
in accordance with Air Force instructions.

According to AFPC/DPPPE, all evaluations documents are  considered  by
the Air Force to be accurate as written at the time they are rendered.
 In their view, changing  those  documents  requires  proof  from  the
applicant that they were inaccurate or unjust.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  AFPC/DPPPO indicated that they  concur
with the advisory opinion from AFPC/DPPPE and can add nothing further.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response
which 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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed, including the statements from  his
former  additional  rater  and  senior  rater,  and  his   contentions
concerning the contested PRF were duly noted.  However, we do not find
the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in  support
of his  appeal  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility concerning
this issue.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the
contested PRF was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s promotion
potential at the  time  it  was  prepared,  we  adopt  the  Air  Force
rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00645 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 02  and  13  Aug  02,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jun 02
    Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02 and 19 Jul 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 2 Aug 02.







                                   EDWARD C. KOENIG III
                                   Panel Chair