RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-00287

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.     The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF),  reflecting  an  overall
recommendation of “Promote,” that was considered by  the  Fiscal  Year  2000
(FY00) Reserve Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and  replaced  with
the original PRF prepared for the  FY00  Reserve  Colonel  Selection  Board,
reflecting an overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote.”

2.    Her corrected record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  the  FY00  Reserve  Colonel
Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her PRF was originally prepared with a “Definitely Promote”  recommendation;
however, based on erroneous performance information provided to  the  senior
rater, the PRF was revised with a “Promote” recommendation.

In support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  statements  from  the
Principal Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  (Acquisition  and  Management),  her
rater, and current senior rater.  In addition, she  submits  copies  of  the
original PRF prepared for the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board, the  PRF
that was considered by the FY00  Reserve  Colonel  Selection  Board,  and  a
revised PRF signed by Brig Gen O---.

The  Principal  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  (Acquisition  and  Management)
states that as a result of a review of the applicant’s record by Brig Gen O-
--, it has been determined that a discrepancy  actually  did  exist  in  the
applicant’s PRF and the magnitude of the discrepancy did justify  a  revised
PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a Reserve officer, is currently serving  on  active  duty  in
the grade of lieutenant colonel as Assistant for Reserve Affairs, AF/XP.

She filed a similar appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB);
however, since a different evaluator signed the  substitute  PRF,  they  did
not render a decision  and  recommended  she  resolve  the  discrepancy  and
resubmit her ERAB application.

She was considered and not selected for promotion to the  grade  of  colonel
by the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board.   The  PRF  considered  by  the
board had an overall promotion recommendation of “Promote.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  ARPC/DPB  states,  in  part,
that allowing a later senior rater’s evaluation  to  override  the  original
senior rater, after the fact, without input from the original  senior  rater
undermines the trust and integrity placed in senior  officers.   Their  vast
experience is  relied  upon  to  make  sound,  correct  justments.   Without
support from the original general officer, or very strong evidence that  the
general officer was unable to make sound, correct judgments,  replacing  the
PRF would be incorrect.  The replacement PRF  is  prepared  by  a  different
officer, one not in her rating chain at the time the PRFs were required  for
presentation to the selection board.  In addition,  the  applicant  has  not
indicated that she attempted to obtain a replacement PRF  from  the  correct
senior rater.  The documentation and support of  a  different  PRF  for  the
applicant was all obtained after the senior rater retired.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that although she was required to have received a  copy
of the PRF submitted to the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection  Board,  she  did
not receive a copy until 14 days prior to the  board  convening.   As  such,
she was denied an opportunity to point out any errors of fact to the  senior
rater so they could be  corrected  prior  to  the  board.   She  immediately
contacted her former supervisor, Colonel S---, who indicated that  while  he
was unaware of the exact  contents  of  the  PRF,  he  was  aware  that  her
original senior rater had a meeting with the senior Individual  Mobilization
Augmentee (IMA) (a member not in her chain of command)  in  the  directorate
to discuss her PRF  at  which  time  erroneous  and  inaccurate  information
regarding her duty performance was provided to the  senior  rater.   Because
of the inflammatory nature of accusations against her, she did not  feel  it
was wise to contract him at the time  as  she  believed  him  to  be  biased
against her, as evidenced by the fact that he did not bring the  allegations
to her attention at the time.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded  that
the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.   The  applicant
contends that the PRF was originally prepared  with  a  “Definitely  Promote
(DP)” recommendation; however, based on  erroneous  performance  information
provided to  the  senior  rater,  the  PRF  was  revised  with  a  “Promote”
recommendation.  In support of  her  appeal,  she  submits  statements  from
current and former rating chain officials, and a revised PRF,  reflecting  a
“DP” recommendation, prepared by her current  senior  rater.   However,  she
has not provided a statement from the senior rater of  record  at  the  time
the contested PRF  was  prepared.   While  the  Principal  Deputy  Assistant
Secretary  (Acquisition  and  Management)  states   that   the   applicant’s
potential to serve in the higher grade is clearly demonstrated  on  all  her
Officer Performance  Reports,  she  does  not  indicate  what  discrepancies
existed in the PRF and how the discrepancies justify  revision.   The  rater
states that potentially erroneous information was  provided  to  the  senior
rater;  however,  he  does  not  indicate  what  erroneous  information  was
provided and does not state what the  facts  and  extenuating  circumstances
are that have now come to light for him to  question  the  accuracy  of  the
contested PRF.  Although  the  current  senior  rater  states  that,  “these
discrepancies  form  the  foundation  for  material  errors,”  he  does  not
indicate what the discrepancies  are.   These  statements  are  duly  noted;
however, they do not provide,  with  any  specificity,  sufficient  detailed
information concerning the circumstances surrounding the PRF.   In  view  of
the above, and in the absence of more detailed statements,  we  believe  the
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that  the  PRF  is  in  error  or
unjust.  Hence, we find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________



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  BC-2002-00287
in Executive Session on 24 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                       Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 03, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair