RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00890
            INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 1 May 95, 1 May 96,  31
Mar 97, and 30 Jan 98, be  voided  and  replaced  with  reaccomplished
OPRs.

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration  by
the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board  be
voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be awarded membership in the Acquisition Corps.

His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM), First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC),
be upgraded to the Air Force Commendation  Medal  (AFCM),  Second  Oak
Leaf Cluster (2OLC).

His Officer Selection  Briefs  (OSBs)  be  corrected  to  reflect  his
membership in the Acquisition Corps and award of the AFCM (2OLC).

He be provided Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  with  his
corrected record.

By amendment, his CY99B PRF  be  corrected  to  reflect  a  Definitely
Promote (DP), and/or, he  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His record that met the CY98B board and  subsequent  boards  contained
substantial errors and injustices, any one of which  may  have  caused
his nonselection.  Some errors were unknown to him at the time of  the
boards and others were beyond his ability to fix.  His appeal  package
will demonstrate that even  after  these  corrections  are  made,  his
record still cannot (due to Air Force policy) fully reflect his actual
level of performance, his demonstrated expertise, nor his  willingness
to go beyond what is required.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  the
reaccomplished PRF and  OPRs,  and  supportive  statements,  including
statements from his former senior rater, Management Review Level (MLR)
president, and members of his rating chain.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that  grade  on  1 Mar 96.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 25 May 84.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1991
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      24 May 91              Meets Standards
       14 Dec 91             Meets Standards
       18 Jul 92             Meets Standards
       25 Jun 93             Training Report
       25 Jun 94             Meets Standards
   *   1 May 95              Meets Standards
   *   1 May 96              Meets Standards
   *  31 Mar 97              Meets Standards
   *# 30 Jan 98              Meets Standards
   ## 30 Jan 99              Meets Standards
      24 Jan 00              Meets Standards
  ### 14 Sep 00              Meets Standards
 #### 28 Jun 01              Meets Standards
##### 15 Jun 02              Meets Standards

* Contested Reports.

    # Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY98B  Below-The-
Promotion Zone (BPZ) Lieutenant Colonel Board.

   ## Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY99A  and  CY99B
Lieutenant Colonel Boards.

  ### Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY00A  Lieutenant
Colonel Board.

#### Top Report at the time he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY01B  Lieutenant
Colonel Board.

##### Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY02B  Lieutenant
Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAS recommended denial of the applicant’s  request  that  he  be
awarded membership in the  Acquisition  Corps.   AFPC/DPAS  noted  the
applicant’s claim that the positions he filled from 28 Aug  95  to  31
Jan 00 while at the Global Positioning  System  (GPS)  System  Program
Office at Los Angeles AFB and at the  T-1  System  Program  Office  at
Wright-Patterson AFB were Critical Acquisitions Positions, and that he
should be an Acquisition Corps member.  They also noted his contention
that his OSB was incorrect by not reflecting  his  membership  in  the
Acquisition Corps.  According to AFPC/DPAS, none  of  these  positions
were  coded  as  Critical  Acquisition  Positions.    Therefore,   the
applicant was not a member of the Acquisition Corps, and his  OSB  was
correct in this respect as it met the board.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAS evaluation, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial of the applicant’s  request  to  upgrade
his AFAM (1OLC) to the AFCM (2OLC).  They indicated that the applicant
did not provide any documentation to support his allegation  that  his
decoration for achievement was downgraded to the AFAM (1OLC), such  as
the DECOR-6 and/or narrative from the original recommendation package.
 Had the original recommendation been for the AFCM (2OLC), there is  a
one-year time limit for reconsideration  for  downgraded  decorations.
The closeout date of the decoration was 20 Apr 99, and  the  applicant
did  not  submit  any  documentation  showing  that  a   request   for
reconsideration was submitted to the final approval authority prior to
20 Apr 00, or any time after that date.  Paragraph 2.4., AFI  36-2803,
The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, dated 1 Jan  98,  states
that the Air  Force  Achievement  Medal  is  awarded  for  outstanding
achievement for a specific act or accomplishment, such  as  completing
important projects, and covers a short period of  time  with  definite
beginning and ending dates.

A complete copy of the  DPPPR  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPE indicated that based on the  documentation  provided,  they
recommend the substitution of the 1 May 95, 1 May 96,  and  31 Mar  97
OPRs;  however,  they  stated  that  the  appropriate  level  of   PME
recommendation for the 1 May  96  and  31 Mar  97  reports  should  be
Intermediate Service School (ISS)--not Senior Service School (SSS).

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial of  the  applicant’s  request  that  his
CY99B PRF and 30 Jan 98 OPR be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF  and
OPR.  They indicated that it is Air Force policy  that  an  evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The
proposed changes to the PRF could have been addressed 30 days prior to
the Central Selection Board, when the  applicant  received  his  copy.
Most reports can be changed to be stronger, harder hitting, or to  add
missing stratification but the time to make these changes is before it
becomes a matter of record.  Therefore, the retrospective views of the
evaluators, years after the reports were written and  the  member  has
received nonselect counseling do not override the initial  assessment.
To allow the change  to  his  PRF  at  this  time  would  provide  the
applicant  with  an  unfair  advantage  over  his  competitive  peers.
AFPC/DPPPE further indicated that the changes to the 30 Jan 98 OPR are
not appropriate since the contested report itself  strongly  suggested
the rating chain was aware of the appropriate job recommendation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that if  the  AFBCMR  decides  in  favor  of  the
applicant and approves the substitution of the 1 May 95, 1 May 96, and
31 Mar 97 OPRs, then they recommend that SSB consideration be  granted
based on the corrections to those three OPRs.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  detailed
response and additional documentary evidence  which  are  attached  at
Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASA indicated that the applicant’s contention that  his  duties
support that he served in a Critical Acquisition Position is rejected.
 As previously stated, none of the positions were  coded  as  Critical
Acquisition Positions.  The applicant’s rebuttal was coordinated  with
SAF/AQX, which  maintains  their  disagreement  with  the  applicant’s
assertion that he served in a Critical Acquisition Position.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPASA, with attachment, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that he had no additional evidence.   However,  he
disagrees with  AFPC/DPASA’s  advisory.   His  appeal  shows  that  he
performed the colonel duties for 19 weeks and the  position  was,  and
still is, a  Critical  Acquisition  Position.   His  appeal  shows  he
performed  duties  in  three  other  positions  defined  as   Critical
Acquisition Positions.  It shows three of four positions are currently
coded as Critical Acquisition Positions.  It also shows the  level  of
responsibility  today,  meriting  credit,  is  the   same   level   of
responsibility he had when he performed the duties.  His appeal  shows
that credit can be  retroactively  awarded.   Therefore,  he  requests
credit for performing those duties.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence  of  error  or  injustice   warranting   corrective   action
concerning the applicant’s requests that his OPRs closing 1 May 95,  1
May 96, and 31 Mar 97 be voided and replaced with reaccomplished OPRs,
and he be provided SSB consideration with his corrected record. Having
carefully  reviewed  the  evidence  presented,  we  agree   with   the
recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE and adopt their rationale  as  the  basis
for our decision that the applicant may have been the victim of either
an error or an injustice.  We also agree with  AFPC/DPPPE  that  since
the  applicant  was  not  eligible  for  an  SSS  recommendation,  the
appropriate level of PME recommendation for the  OPRs  should  be  ISS
rather than  SSS.  Accordingly,  we  recommend  that  the  applicant’s
records be corrected as set forth below, and that he be  provided  SSB
consideration with his corrected record.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s requests
that his OPR closing 30 Jan  98  and  his  CY99B  PRF  be  voided  and
replaced with a reaccomplished OPR and PRF; he be  awarded  membership
in the Acquisition Corps; his AFAM (1OLC)  be  upgraded  to  the  AFCM
(2OLC); his OSBs  be  corrected  to  reflect  his  membership  in  the
Acquisition Corps and award of the  AFCM  (2OLC);  his  CY99B  PRF  be
changed to a DP; and, he  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  The applicant’s complete submission was thoroughly reviewed,
including the statements from the senior rater, MLR president, and his
rating chain, and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not
find the applicant’s assertions and  the  documentation  presented  in
support  of  his  appeal  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override   the
rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility
(OPRs) concerning the aforementioned issues.   No  clear-cut  evidence
has been presented which  shows  to  our  satisfaction  that  the  OPR
closing 30 Jan 98 and CY99B PRF  were  inaccurate  depictions  of  his
performance and promotion potential at the time they  were  originally
prepared, or that he is entitled to Acquisition Corps  membership  and
award of the AFCM (2OLC).   Furthermore,  regarding  his  request  for
promotion, we note that officers compete for promotion under the whole
person  concept  whereby  many  factors  are  carefully  assessed   by
selection boards.  In addition, an officer may be  qualified,  but  in
the judgment of a selection board--vested with discretionary authority
to make the  selections—-may  not  be  the  best  qualified  of  those
available for the limited number of promotion  vacancies.   Therefore,
absent evidence that the applicant  cannot  be  given  full  and  fair
consideration by a  duly  constituted  SSB,  we  believe  placing  the
applicant’s corrected record before  an  SSB  is  proper  and  fitting
relief.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of  evidence  to
the contrary, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of  establishing  that  he  has  suffered
either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s
requests are 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 Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF  Form
707B, rendered for the period 26 Jun 94 through  1  May  95,  and  the
Field Grade OPRs, AF Forms 707A, rendered  for  the  periods  2 May 95
through 1 May 96 and 2 May 96 through 31 Mar 97, be declared void  and
removed from his records.

      b.  The attached Company Grade OPR, AF Form 707B,  rendered  for
the period 26 Jun 94 through 1 May 95, which reflects  in  Section  VI
"my CGO/Year," be inserted in his officer selection folder.

      c.  The attached Field Grade  OPRs,  rendered  for  the  periods
2 May 95 through 1 May 96 and 2 May 96 through 31 Mar 97 be amended in
the last lines of Sections VI and  VII  to  read  "ISS,"  rather  than
"SSS," and be inserted in his officer selection folder.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B)  Below-The-Promotion  Zone  (BPZ)  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for any subsequent  boards  for
which the OPRs closing 1 May 95, 1 May 96, and 31 Mar 97 were a matter
of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00890 in Executive Session on 11 Mar 03, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
      Mr. George Franklin, Member
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAS, undated, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Oct 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Oct 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Nov 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPASA, dated 24 Jan 03, w/atch.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jan 03.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, applicant, dated 20 Feb 03.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair










AFBCMR 02-00890




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 , be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF
Form 707B, rendered for the period 26 Jun 94 through 1 May 95, and the
Field Grade OPRs, AF Forms 707A, rendered for the periods 2 May 95
through 1 May 96 and 2 May 96 through 31 Mar 97, be, and hereby are,
declared void and removed from his records.

            b.  The attached Company Grade OPR, AF Form 707B, rendered
for the period 26 Jun 94 through 1 May 95, which reflects in Section
VI "my CGO/Year," be inserted in his officer selection folder.

            c.  The attached Field Grade OPRs, AF Forms 707A, rendered
for the periods 2 May 95 through 1 May 96 and 2 May 96 through 31 Mar
97 be amended in the last lines of Sections VI and VII to read "ISS,"
rather than "SSS," and be inserted in his officer selection folder.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Below-The-Promotion Zone (BPZ) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for any subsequent boards for
which the OPRs closing 1 May 95, 1 May 96, and 31 Mar 97 were a matter
of record.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachments:
AF Form 707B
AF Forms 707A