RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02497
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him and  reviewed
by  the  CY01B  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel   Selection   Board   be
substituted with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be considered for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  special
selection board  (SSB)  for  the  CY01B  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His senior rater inadvertently omitted a  command  recommendation  on
his PRF.  This omission directly contributed to his nonselection  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel.

He voiced concerns over  the  PRF  prior  to  the  convening  of  the
selection board, but was told by his senior rater that  he  had  made
the PRF as strong as he was allowed to make it.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides  a  statement  from  his
senior rater and a new PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  A review of the  applicant’s  last  ten  officer  performance
reports (OPRs) reflect overall ratings  of  “meets  standards.”   The
applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to lieutenant
colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) Central Lieutenant Colonel  Selection
Board.

On 17 July 2002, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied  a
similar appeal from the applicant to substitute his PRF for the CY01B
selection board.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB  recommends  denial  of  the   applicant’s   request   to
substitute his PRF with a reaccomplished PRF.  The applicant has  the
support of both his senior rater and Management  Level  Review  (MLR)
president (The senior rater and MLR president are the  same  in  this
instance).  However, in order to change Section  IV  of  a  PRF,  the
senior rater must demonstrate that 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.   The  applicant  has  not  presented
evidence of a material error.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion
consideration  by  SSB.   They   concur   with   the   findings   and
recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEB.  Since  it  is  recommended  that  the
applicant not be  allowed  to  substitute  his  PRF,  an  SSB  would,
therefore, not be appropriate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on
8 November 2002 for review and comment within 30 days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices 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.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, 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 Docket Number  02-02497
in Executive Session on 17 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 24 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Nov 02.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

          After careful review of all the circumstances of this case, I
disagree with the AFBCMR panel’s decision to deny the applicant’s
requests to substitute the promotion recommendation form (PRF) prepared
on him for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board with a
new PRF containing a recommendation for command and that he be
considered for promotion by special selection board (SSB) for that same
board.

          The CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board did not
select the applicant for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  He believes
that an inadvertent omission of a command recommendation on his
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) directly contributed to his
nonselection for promotion.

          The AFBCMR based their decision to deny this case on the fact
that the senior rater had the opportunity to include the recommendation
for command in the original version of the PRF.  In taking this view,
it would appear that they do not accept the statement of the senior
rater that he made a mistake or do not believe that he should be
allowed to correct it.  In my view, I believe the applicant’s record
supports the position that the senior rater indeed did make a mistake.
I note that the three Officer Performance Reports prepared on him prior
to the PRF all include a recommendation for command.  Unfortunately,
there is no way to determine with any degree of certainty if the
omission of a command recommendation adversely impacted the applicant’s
promotion opportunity.  However, the senior rater’s statement confirms
that the PRF he submitted was not what he had intended.

          Since the usual standard for approving these types of cases
is the unequivocal support of the applicant’s rating chain, I believe
the element of doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.
Therefore, it is my decision that the PRF prepared on the applicant for
the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be substituted
with a revised PRF and that he be considered for promotion to
lieutenant colonel by SSB with the revised PRF.





                 MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                 Assistant Secretary
                 (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)