RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03562
                                       INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His P0500A promotion recommendation form (PRF) be  corrected  to  reflect  a
$166 million program versus an $80 million program; his  completion  of  the
USAF F-15E Instructor Upgrade Course  be  documented  on  an  AF  Form  475,
Education/Training  Report,  versus  AF  Form  77,  Supplemental  Evaluation
Sheet; and his officer performance report (OPR) for the period 3 May 1998  -
2 May 1999, be corrected to include  his  rater’s  intended  senior  service
school (SSS) recommendation; and he be considered  by  a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater unintentionally left out a recommendation on  his  OPR  closing  2
May 1999.  His initial qualification training should  have  been  documented
on an AF Form 475 instead of an AF Form 77.  The mistake  was  made  due  to
confusion in the training facility.  An  incorrect  dollar  amount  for  the
flying-hour program he solely managed was used on his PRF for the CY00A  (28
Nov 00) (P0500A) Central Lt Col Selection Board.

In support of  his  application,  he  provides  a  personal  statement,  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; AF  Form  948,  Application
for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; his letter to the  CY00/P0500A
Central Lt Col Selection Board; a supporting statement  from  his  rater;  a
spreadsheet identifying value of  his  flying-hour  program;  the  contested
OPR, a supporting letter from his commander; the contested PRF; a  corrected
copy of his PRF; his  contested  AF  Form  77;  a  corrected  AF  Form  475;
additional  training  reports/supplemental  evaluation  sheets;  and  e-mail
documentation researching his case.  The  applicant’s  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the  applicant  is
a rated officer who was appointed a Second Lieutenant, Reserve  of  the  Air
Force on 11 May 1985, and was voluntarily ordered to  extended  active  duty
on 8 August 1985.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force  on  1  July
1993 and was progressively promoted to the grade of Major (0-4) with a  date
of rank of 1 April 1997 and is still currently serving on active duty.

The applicant has two non-selections to the grade of Lt  Col  by  the  CY00A
(28 Nov 00) (P0500A) and the CY01B (5 Nov 01)  (P0501B)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings  and
training reports commencing with the report closing 30 October 1992:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      30 Oct 92                         Meets Standards (MS)
       9 Jun 93                                MS
       9 Jun 94                                MS
      14 Oct 94                                MS
*      5 Jan 95                         Supplemental Evaluation Sheet
      31 Jul 95                                MS
      15 Jun 96                                MS
      15 Jun 97 (Major)                        MS
       2 May 98                                MS
*      2 May 99                                MS
       2 May 00                                MS
      29 Jun 01                                MS
      20 Feb 02                         Training Report (TR)
      19 Jul 02                                MS

* Contested reports.

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered  and  disapproved  the
applicant’s request to substitute corrected copies of his OPR closing out  2
May 1999, his TR closing 5 January 1995, and the P0500A PRF.  The ERAB  also
did not approve the applicant’s request that his records  meet  an  SSB  for
promotion consideration.  The applicant’s MPF was notified of the  above  on
13 September 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommends  denial.   DPPPE  cites  Air  Force  policy  that  an
evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of
record.  It is DPPPE’s opinion that there are no errors or injustices  cited
in the applicant’s OPR closing 2 May 1999.  Additionally, DPPPE  states  the
applicant’s completion of the  USAF  F-15E  Instructor  Upgrade  Course  was
properly documented on an Air Force Form  77.   Finally,  DPPPE  states  the
applicant had more than ample time to request a  correction  to  his  P0500A
PRF prior to the Central Selection Board (CSB) before it became a matter  of
record.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO concurs with the  findings  from  DPPPE
and has nothing further to add.   DPPPO  states  since  the  DPPPE  advisory
recommends  denial,  SSB  consideration  is  not   warranted.    The   DPPPO
evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  claims  he  is  not  receiving  fair  consideration.    He
vehemently denies any attempt to “cloud the facts” as the  DPPPE  advisory
indicates.  The applicant states he brought the  PRF  discrepancy  to  the
attention of his supervisors and attempted to get it  corrected;  however,
with the operations tempo and preparation to deploy to a  combat  zone  at
the time, he was unable to get the changes made in time.  The  applicant’s
review is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant asserts  that  he  should
be afforded an SSB for promotion by the CY 2000A central lieutenant  colonel
selection board based on the correction of the dollar figure for  a  program
he managed as cited on the PRF prepared for that board, the  addition  of  a
PME recommendation to his OPR closing 2 May 1999, and the substitution of  a
Education/Training Report in place of a  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet  to
document  his  completion  of  a  90-day  upgrade  training   course.    The
applicant’s requests are not favorably considered  based  on  the  following
discussion.

       a.  The  applicant  asserts  that  his  upgrade  should   have   been
documented on an AF Form 475 rather than an  AF  Form  77.   The  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility has indicated  that  the  AF  Form  77  was
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the  governing  regulation  in
effect at the time he completed the training.  The  applicant  has  provided
no documentary evidence that would lead us to believe the contrary  was  the
case.  In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to substitute  the
AF Form 475 in place of the AF Form 77, as the applicant has requested.

      b.  We have noted the  statement  of  support  by  the  rater  of  the
applicant’s OPR  closing  2  May  1999  and  do  not  find  it  sufficiently
persuasive to warrant approval of the addition of a  PME  recommendation  to
the contested report.  In this regard, we note that  there  is  inconsistent
support  for  Senior  Service  School  on  the  reports  written  prior  and
subsequent to the contested report.  The rater’s section  on  the  contested
report is completely filled in and this officer  did  not  indicate  in  his
statement that he was unaware that the applicant  was  eligible  for  a  PME
recommendation at the time the report was prepared, but states that  such  a
recommendation was “overlooked.”  After reviewing the rater’s statement,  we
are left with the impression that his proposal to change the OPR is  nothing
more than a  well-meaning  attempt  to  improve  the  applicant’s  promotion
opportunities, which is, in our view, an inappropriate  basis  on  which  to
correct the record.

      c.  As to the applicant’s request that  the  dollar  figure  cited  in
Section III, Item 2 of the contested PRF be changed, even though it  appears
that the value of this  program  represented  on  the  contested  report  is
erroneous, the Board majority does not believe that  the  error  caused  his
record to be so erroneous or misleading that the  CY  2000A  was  unable  to
make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability  in  comparison
to his peers.  Therefore, the Board majority is of  the  opinion  that,  for
all intents and  purposes,  this  error  was  harmless  to  the  applicant’s
promotion opportunitity and declines to favorably consider this request.

      d.  Accordingly, in view of the above,  the  applicant’s  request  for
consideration  by  an  SSB  for  the  CY  200A  central  lieutenant  colonel
selection board is also not favorably considered.

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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
            Ms. Martha Maust, Member

Ms. Vestal and Mr. Russell voted to deny the application.   Ms. Maust  voted
to grant the applicant’s request for a correction to the  dollar  figure  in
Section II, Item 2 of the contested PRF and to deny  the  remainder  of  the
applicant’s requests but elected not  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-2002-03562  was
considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 1 Nov 02 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 22 Jan 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 Jan 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal w/atchs, undated.





                                  PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                  Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2002-03562


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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient 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