RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01397

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  Promotion  Recommendation  (PRF),  AF  Form  709,  prepared   for
consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B  (CY99B)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board, indicating  a  “Promote”  recommendation,  be
replaced with a reaccomplished PRF containing a  change  to  the  last
line of Section  IV,  and  indicating  an  Overall  Recommendation  of
"Definitely Promote” (DP) in Section IX.

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for  promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An error was found in his record that changed his duty history.   When
he informed the senior rater of the error, the  senior  rater  decided
that  he   should   have   been   awarded   a   “Definitely   Promote”
recommendation.  The senior rater then informed the  Management  Level
Review (MLR) president  and  he  concurred  with  the  senior  rater’s
assessment.  Both recommended a correction to his  record.   Once  the
recommendation is changed, the current last line no longer  makes  any
sense.  The senior rater prepared a new line to correct the  narrative
section of the report as well.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, statements from the senior  rater,  MLR  president  and  --
Operations  Group  commander,  and  copies   of   the   original   and
reaccomplished PRFs, and  his  corrected  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) closing 30 Nov 90.

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 Jan  96.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 19 Jul 83.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1990 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      30 Nov 90              Meets Standards
      30 Nov 91              Meets Standards
       6 Jul 92              Meets Standards
      13 Apr 93              Meets Standards
      13 Apr 94              Meets Standards
       4 Mar 95              Meets Standards
       4 Mar 96              Meets Standards
      14 May 97              Meets Standards
       9 Mar 98              Meets Standards
  #   9 Mar 99               Meets Standards
 ##   9 Mar 00               Meets Standards
###   9 Mar 01               Meets Standards

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

 ## 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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommended denial noting that the  applicant  provided  a
new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior  rater  and  MLR
president.  According to AFPC/DPPPEB, to change the  PRF,  the  senior
rater is required to 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 all instances, the requested change  to
the PRF must be related to a documented error.  Appeals to  rewrite  a
PRF and change the overall rating to include previously  available  or
documented accomplishments  should  not  be  approved.   In  addition,
officers  are  required  to  demonstrate   reasonable   diligence   in
correcting their record prior to the central  selection  board.   This
did not occur in regard to the applicant’s 30 Nov 90 OPR prior to  the
central selection board.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial indicating that  they  concur  with  the
AFPC/DPPPEB advisory and have nothing further to add.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response  indicating  that  he  did  monitor  his
record  with  due  diligence.   He  checked  it  numerous  times,  his
commander checked it, and he even traveled to the Air Force  Personnel
Center (AFPC) for a face-to-face review with a  personnel  specialist.
No one found the error until after his primary promotion board.  After
his record was corrected, both the  senior  rater  and  MLR  president
recommended changing his PRF recommendation to a “Definitely Promote.”
 Clearly, the error in his record was “material” and had a significant
adverse impact.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation submitted  in  support  of  his  appeal,  including  the
statements from the senior rater  and  MLR  president,  sufficient  to
persuade us that corrective action is warranted  in  this  case.   The
evidence of record indicates that the applicant’s duty  title  on  his
OPR closing 30 Nov 90 was in error  and,  therefore,  was  changed  to
reflect he  was  an  Instructor/Evaluator  Navigator  rather  than  an
Instructor  Navigator.   The  applicant  contends  this  error  proved
pivotal in his senior rater’s promotion recommendation decision not to
give him a “DP.”  The senior rater supports his  assertion  indicating
that competition was very keen and he had to make a  decision  between
several very fine  officers.   According  to  the  senior  rater,  the
missing evaluator hallmark was the “tie breaker” and he  gave  another
officer the DP.  The MLR president concurred with the  senior  rater’s
assessment and recommendation.  However, the comments from the  senior
rater and MLR president have not shown to our  satisfaction  that  had
the   duty   title   on   the   OPR   closing   30 Nov 90    reflected
Instructor/Evaluator  Navigator  versus  Instructor   Navigator,   the
applicant would  have  definitely  received  a  “DP”  over  the  other
individuals who competed for and were awarded “DPs.”  Furthermore,  we
note that prior to the correction of the duty title on the OPR closing
30 Nov 90, the report indicated in Section  IV  that  he  administered
evaluations, and reflected in Section VI  that  he  was  not  only  an
instructor, but also an  evaluator.   Therefore,  notwithstanding  the
applicant’s  assertions  concerning  this  matter,   we   agree   with
AFPC/DPPPEB that the information was available for consideration.   It
is our opinion that the statements  from  the  senior  rater  and  MLR
president represent their retrospective judgments of  the  applicant’s
performance and demonstrated potential which,  in  our  view,  do  not
provide an appropriate basis to find that the  contested  PRF  was  an
inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s  promotion  potential  at  the
time it was prepared.  In view of the above, and  in  the  absence  of
sufficient 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01397 in Executive Session on 3 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Ms. Brenda Romine, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 14 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 4 Nov 02, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair

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

FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Case of , AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01397

      I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the AFBCMR panel that the applicant’s requests that the
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the
Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be
replaced with a reaccomplished PRF, and that he be given Special Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel
should be denied.

      The applicant’s duty title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR)
closing 30 Nov 90 was in error in that it reflected he was an Instructor
Navigator rather than an Instructor/Evaluator Navigator.  The applicant
believes that the error impacted his senior rater’s decision not to give
him a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation.  The senior rater explains
the importance of the missing designation of Evaluator/Navigator, stating
that selection for evaluator duties sends a distinct message of “trust” and
clearly shows the member is an expert in the major weapon system.  The
senior rater advises that its omission sends a negative message that
adversely impacts promotion consideration and that it was the “tie breaker”
which caused him to give the DP to another officer.  The Management Level
Review (MLR) president advises that he, too, has reviewed the corrected
record and agrees with the senior rater’s assessment and recommendation.
The AFBCMR noted the applicant’s OPR reflected that he administered
evaluations and that he was not only an instructor but was also an
evaluator.  Consequently, the AFBCMR did not find the statements from the
senior rater and the MLR president sufficiently compelling to recommend
relief.  As noted earlier, I disagree.

      Having no basis to question the integrity of the senior rater and the
MLR president, who unequivocally states, in essence, that the erroneous
duty title in the applicant’s OPR was the sole and exclusive reason for his
failure to receive a DP promotion recommendation for the CY99B Central Lt
Colonel Selection Board, equity dictates that the applicant’s request be
granted.  Accordingly, it is my decision that the PRF prepared for
consideration by the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be
replaced with a reaccomplished PRF, and that the applicant be given SSB
consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

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




AFBCMR BC-2002-01397




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 Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709,
prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, indicating a "Promote"
recommendation, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.

            b.  The attached reaccomplished PRF, indicating a
"Definitely Promote" recommendation, 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 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with
inclusion of the reaccomplished PRF.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
AF Form 709