RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01183
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a.  Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  CY98B  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a corrected PRF.

b.  The Defense Meritorious Service Medal  (DMSM)  be  added  to  her  CY98B
Officer Selection Brief (OSB).

c.  She be considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the  CY98B  selection  board;  or  in  the
alternative, she be promoted to lieutenant colonel

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After the transfer of base-level accounting and  finance  functions  to  the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) a phased  process  took  place
from 1993 to 1998  consolidating  offices  into  operating  locations.   The
consolidation  caused  the  closure  of  many  organizations.   During   the
transfer she was personally selected as  the  Director,  Defense  Accounting
Office (DAO), Hill AFB, UT.  Although she was junior in grade in  comparison
to her contemporaries, there was full confidence in her  ability  to  handle
the complex and demanding responsibilities of consolidating  operations  and
closing the organization.

In 1996 and 1997, she was awarded a Definitely Promote  (DP)  recommendation
in  both  of  her  below-the-zone  (BPZ)  considerations  for  promotion  to
lieutenant  colonel.   During  the  1998  rating  period,  her   supervisors
continued to praise her job performance as outstanding.  During  the  period
of January 1995 through February 1998 her team  consolidated  the  extremely
complex DAO and closed it.  During this time, her entire  supervisory  chain
either retired or was reassigned.  Her immediate supervisor  and  additional
rater were reassigned in June and July 1997.  Her senior rater  of  5  years
was reassigned in January 1998 and a new senior  rater  was  assigned.   She
deactivated the DAO in February 1998.  She received a copy  of  her  PRF  in
April 1998 with a Promote (P) recommendation  which  was  inconsistent  with
her last  two  evaluations  and  the  fact  that  her  responsibilities  had
increased.  She began a series of phone calls to her new  senior  rater  for
the purpose of reporting the discrepancies in her PRF but  her  phone  calls
were never returned.  Because her phone calls were never returned,  she  was
never afforded the opportunity to correct her PRF.

Her new senior rater acknowledged his error in judgment  and  corrected  the
PRF by upgrading her promotion recommendation to a DP.   Her  former  senior
rater provided a letter to provide performance inputs into her PRF.  In  his
letter he stated that he would have awarded her a  DP  as  he  had  the  two
previous  years.   AFI  36-2403  states  that  the  writer  of  a  promotion
recommendation must have credible knowledge of the ratee's most  recent  job
performance.  Her former  senior  rater  also  states  "during  her  primary
consideration for lieutenant colonel, she  had  no  one  familiar  with  her
career performance to ensure she received the  justifiably  deserved  DP  as
awarded   twice   previously.    Undoubtedly   this   resulted   in   unfair
representation of her at the Management Level Review (MLR) with a  P  versus
a DP."

She submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)  that
was first returned without action because she did not  provide  a  statement
from her senior rater and MLR President and because  she  provided  unsigned
documents.  She satisfied those discrepancies and obtained  the  letters  of
support from the senior  rater  and  MLR  President.   She  resubmitted  her
appeal to the ERAB and her appeal was denied due to a  lack  of  substantial
evidence.

In support of her request, applicant provided documents associated with  her
ERAB appeals, copies of her original and corrected PRFs, a letter  from  her
CY98B MLR President, a letter from her former additional rater, and  letters
of support from her new and former senior raters.  Her complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data systems reflects that  the  applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force  on  30  Sep  82
and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 20 Oct 82.   She  was
integrated into  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  23  May  86.   She  has  been
progressively promoted to the grade of  major,  having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 94.  She was considered  and  not
selected for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY98B
(1 Jun 98), CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A  (28  Nov  00),  and
the CY01B (5 Nov  01)  central  selection  boards.   She  currently  has  an
established date of separation of 31 Oct 02.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB reviewed applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPPPEB
states that changes to supervisory rating chains are  a  regular  occurrence
in  the  Air  Force  because  personnel  retire  and/or  are  selected   for
reassignment throughout their  careers.   However,  DPPPEB  noted  that  her
"entire supervisory rating chain" did not change.  In  fact,  her  immediate
supervisor,  as  depicted  in  her  August  1997  and  August  1998  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs), remained her rater for her  last  two  years  at
Hill AFB.

She states that because her senior rater began his duties in  January  1998,
he did  not  have  enough  supervision  to  write  her  PRF  and  accurately
determine  her  promotion  recommendation.  The   promotion   recommendation
process begins 150 days before the central selection board.  Day  150  began
the first week of January 1998, the same time  he  took  over  senior  rater
responsibilities.  It was not until day 60 that he was able to complete  her
PRF.  That 3-month timeframe gave him the same period as  all  other  senior
raters in  the  Air  Force  to  consider  eligible  officers  for  promotion
recommendations.  He had access to personal  knowledge  of  her  performance
and met all requirements to serve as the senior rater.

Her senior rater had 2 eligible officers and had  to  compete  his  eligible
officers at the MLR for one DP recommendation.  The  MLR  also  had  only  2
eligible officers, the same two.  After careful  review  of  each  officer's
entire record of performance, the  DP  recommendation  was  awarded  to  the
other eligible officer.  The fact that  she  was  awarded  DPs  in  her  BPZ
considerations has no bearing on this appeal.  Eligible  pools  of  officers
constantly change due  to  reassignment,  retirements  etc.   As  such,  the
"quality level" of officers also changes.  Senior raters must  evaluate  and
compare the performance and future  potential  based  on  that  performance.
The record of  performance  must  stand  on  it's  own  merit.   An  overall
recommendation of DP or P can easily change from one promotion board to  the
next.

In support of her appeal, her senior rater  states  that  "her  PRF  omitted
selection for Senior Service School and command.  It was the intent of  both
the previous and current  DFAS  management  chain  that  she  was  a  strong
candidate for service school and command".  School and command pushes  in  a
PRF are optional considerations.  DPPPEB  noted  that  in  contrast  to  his
statement, a command push was not included in the revised PRF.

Her appeal is unfounded.  The proposed change does not remove  any  negative
information or add positive information.  The senior rater did not  identify
a material error  in  the  PRF,  record  of  performance,  or  process  that
resulted in an erroneous rating.

The DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed applicant's request and recommends that her  request  to
include the DMSM be time-barred or denied due to a  lack  of  merit.   DPPPO
states that the DMSM did not exist at the time  the  CY98B  board  convened.
The period of the award was January 1995  to  September  1998.   The  orders
were published on 21 Aug 98 and was not required to be filed in her  records
until 21 Sep 98, three and a half months after the board convened.

Regarding her request for direct promotion, DPPPO states that the intent  of
Congress and DoD is clear that  when  errors  are  perceived  to  ultimately
affect promotion, they should be addressed and resolved through the  use  of
SSBs.  Her record clearly does not warrant direct promotion by  the  AFBCMR,
nor does it warrant further SSB consideration.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that her 1998 OPR covers the annual  period  from  1997  to
1998.   It  only  reflects  job  performance  for  the  final  5  months  of
consolidation and deactivation from August 1997 to February 98.  There is  a
10 Apr 98 feedback session  indicated  on  the  OPR;  however,  no  feedback
session was ever conducted on  that  date,  she  was  transferred  2  months
previously.  What should have been a  close-out  report  is  now  an  annual
report in her records.   The  inability  to  document  her  job  performance
supports her claim that after her supervisory chain of command  departed  no
one was left to properly document her job performance.

DPEEB states that her senior rater had the same amount of time as all  other
senior raters on the Air Force to consider eligible officers for  promotion.
 At first glance it appears so because she was  still  assigned  to  DFAS-DE
after the workload transferred on 6 Feb 98.  When he arrived in January  she
was packing  over  700  boxes  preparing  for  the  movers,  the  accounting
workload had been completed.   This  left  him  no  time  to  have  personal
knowledge or access  personal  knowledge  of  her  performance  because  the
accounting related tasks were complete and those individuals  familiar  with
her performance had retired or been reassigned.   Her  senior  rater  stated
that he did not have knowledge of her most recent job  performance  and  her
former senior rater stated that she had no  one  familiar  with  her  career
performance   to   ensure   she   received   a   justifiably   deserved   DP
recommendation.

The DAO consolidated its accounting workload on 6 Feb 98.   The  tour  ended
when the mission deactivated and she remained in a  "casual  status"  for  7
months from February to September.  This occurred because her PAS  code  had
not been properly  deactivated,  thus  the  close-out  OPR  and  end-of-tour
decoration were not accomplished.  If it had been properly deactivated  then
an OPR shell and a DÉCOR-6 would have been generated.   If  the  system  had
worked properly an OPR covering the  period  August  1997  through  February
1998 and the end-of-tour decoration would have met the selection board.

In support of her request, applicant provided a  personal  statement  and  a
timeline of the sequence of events.  Her complete submission 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 error or injustice regarding the applicant's request  that  her
DMSM be included in the CY98B  selection  process.   In  this  respect,  the
CY98B lieutenant  colonel  selection  board  convened  on  1  Jun  98.   The
inclusive period of the DMSM closed out in September  1998  and  the  orders
were published on  21  Aug  98,  both  of  which  occurred  well  after  the
selection board had convened. Her contentions are duly  noted;  however,  we
agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice in this matter.

Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to   demonstrate   the
existence of injustice with regard to her request that her PRF prepared  for
the  CY98B  lieutenant  colonel  selection  board   be   replaced   with   a
reaccomplished PRF.  In support of her contention,  the  applicant  provided
credible evidence from her rating chain, to  include  the  Management  Level
Review (MLR) President, who clearly indicated that her PRF did  not  portray
an accurate assessment of her promotion potential.   Given  the  unequivocal
support from  the  senior  Air  Force  officials  involved,  and  having  no
plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter,  we  believe  that
the  contested  PRF  should  be  declared   void   and   replaced   with   a
reaccomplished PRF.  Accordingly  it  is  our  opinion  she  should  receive
promotion consideration by SSB for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  We note that the Air Force has indicated  that  the  proposed  PRF
provided by the applicant contains an administrative error  in  section  VI,
Group Size, that should be corrected  prior  to  presentation  to  the  SSB.
Accordingly, we recommend that  her  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:

a.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared  for  the
Calendar Year 1998B (CY98BA) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection  Board  be
declared void and removed from her records and the attached PRF be  accepted
for file in its place.

b.  The Group Size, in Section VI of the above mentioned  PRF  be  corrected
to reflect "2," rather than "N/A."

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board  for  the  CY98B  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the attached PRF.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-01183  in
Executive Session on 20 Aug 02 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

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


     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 02.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 7 Apr 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 14 Jun 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs




                                             OLGA M. CRERAR
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR 02-00183




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show:

            a.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709,
prepared for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her
records and the attached PRF be accepted for file in its place.

            b.  The attached PRF be amended in Section VI, Group Size, to
reflect "2," rather than "N/A."

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY98B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the attached
PRF.








  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaacomplished PRF