RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01376 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for  the  CY99B  (P0599B)
Lieutenant Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  be  replaced  with  the
reaccomplished PRF provided.

He be considered for promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for  the  P0599B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Board, with the new PRF.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His senior rater failed to include a recommendation  for  Professional
Military  Education  (PME);  therefore,  the   PRF   was   inaccurate,
incomplete and prejudiced.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy  of  the  original
PRF, the revised PRF and a statement from the senior rater,  with  the
concurrence of the  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)  president.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
20 Jul 84.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major, with an effective date and date  of  rank  of  6 Oct  92.   The
following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to  his  promotion
to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

                 18 Mar 93   Meets Standards (MS)
                 14 Feb 94       MS
                 14 Feb 95       MS
                 14 Feb 96       MS
            #    14 Feb 97       MS
            ##    9 Oct 97       MS
            ###   2 Jun 98       MS
            ####  2 Jun 99       MS
            ##### 2 Jun 00       MS
            ######2 Jun 01       MS

# Top report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY97B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 2 Jun 97.

## Top report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY97E  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 8 Dec 97.

### Top report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY99A  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99.

#### Top report at the time he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY99B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 30 Nov 99.

##### Top report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY00A  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 28 Nov 00.

###### Top report at the time he was considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY01B  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Board, which convened on 5 Nov 01.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 17 Sep 01.

Information maintained in the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals that
the applicant currently has an established date of separation (DOS) of
31 Jul 04.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEB recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPEB  stated
that to change Section IV of the contested PRF, the senior rater  must
demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF, a material error in
the record of performance that substantially impacted the  content  of
the PRF, or a material error in the  process  by  which  the  PRF  was
crafted.   In  addition,  the  applicant  must  demonstrate  he   took
corrective action upon receipt and review of  his  PRF  prior  to  the
central selection board.  DPPPEB  indicated  that  these  requirements
were not met.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application  be  denied.   DPPPO  concurs
with the HQ AFPC/DPPPEB advisory  and  has  nothing  further  to  add.
Since HQ AFPC/DPPPEB recommends denial, Special Selection Board  (SSB)
consideration is not warranted.  The HQ  AFPC/DPPP  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
basis for his request is twofold.  First, the  PRF  submitted  to  the
promotion board contained an incorrect statement of fact by citing the
wrong military operation to describe his  efforts  in  northern  Iraq.
The second correction is the omission of  a  PME  recommendation.   He
left his assignment  at  Wright-Patterson  AFB,  OH,  under  permanent
change of station  orders  prior  to  receiving  the  PRF,  which  was
forwarded to his new duty station at Lackland AFB, TX, shortly  before
the board  convened.   His  effort  to  raise  the  issue  for  a  PME
recommendation with the senior rater and MLR president was  eventually
successful, but could not have been accomplished in the  brief  period
of time prior  to  the  selection  board.   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 an injustice.  The applicant’s contentions  are  duly
noted, as was  the  senior  rater’s  supporting  statement,  with  the
concurrence of the MLR President.  However, we are not persuaded  that
the statements support voiding and replacing the  contested  PRF.   We
note that the senior rater claims the  omission  of  the  Professional
Military Education (PME) recommendation was an oversight.  Due to  the
level of importance placed on PRFs and considering the scrutiny  these
reports receive, we do not find this  statement,  alone,  sufficiently
compelling to warrant substitution of the report.  Rather, it  appears
to us that this statement is a well-meaning, after-the-fact attempt to
enhance the  applicant’s  promotability.   Such  motivations  are  not
sufficient to support  findings  that  the  report  itself,  with  the
exception of the issue discussed below, was so erroneous or unjust  at
the time it was prepared that it should now be declared void.   As  to
the incorrect statement of fact on the contested PRF, we note that the
applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 14 Feb 96  and
9 Oct 97, were corrected by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)
in a previous action and that the applicant received SSB consideration
based on this correction.  Although the incorrect statement was on the
contested PRF, the applicant was provided SSB  consideration,  with  a
corrected record.  Since selection boards evaluate the entire  officer
record, the correct  information  was  available  for  review  on  the
revised OPRs when he was considered for promotion by an SSB on 24  May
99 and 2 Aug 99, which convened prior to the CY99B (30 Nov 99) Central
Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board.   Therefore,  we  believe   the
applicant was afforded appropriate  relief  concerning  the  erroneous
statement and his records were given fair and equitable consideration.
 In view of the above, and in the absence of more persuasive evidence,
we find no compelling basis 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 August 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
                  Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 13 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 9 Jul 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair