RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01476

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR)  for  the  period  21  June  1998
through 4 May 1999 be declared void and removed from his  records  and
he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration  for  promotion
to the grade of colonel  by  the  CY98C,  CY99A,  and  CY00A,  central
colonel selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR for the period ending 4 May 1999 should have been  written  by
the wing commander and was arbitrarily and  inappropriately  delegated
and downgraded to the vice wing commander.  This sent a clear  message
to the promotion boards and unjustly influenced the outcome.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submits a personal statement.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered extended active duty on 17 February  1976.   and
retired after 24 years, 8 months and 14 days of total  active  service
in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

The applicant had five nonselections to the grade of  colonel  by  the
CY96B, CY97B, CY98C,  CY99A,  and  CY00A,  central  colonel  selection
boards.






The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile since 1994:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 30 Jun 94        Meets Standards (MS)
                 28 Jul 95                   MS
                 20 Jun 96                   MS
                 20 Jun 97                   MS
                 20 Jun 98                   MS
                  4 May 99                   MS
      *          15 Dec 99                   MS

      * Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial. The applicant contends his rater  should
have been the wing commander because that is whom he reported directly
to.  However, the Air Force does not require the designated  rater  to
be the  immediate  supervisor.   Often,  in  an  effort  to  ease  his
workload, the wing commander delegates the rating responsibilities  of
division  chiefs  to  the  vice  commander.   This  is  authorized  in
accordance with AFI  36-2402,  paragraph  3.3.5.   Although  they  are
ultimately responsible to the  wing  commander  for  their  respective
programs, the vice commander monitors the division chiefs'  day-to-day
activities  and  provides  assessments  on   their   performance   and
potential.  The  reference,  given  by  the  applicant,  AFI  36-2406,
paragraph 3.2.5.4 does not apply because there is  no  deviation  from
the designated chain and no evaluator was skipped.

The applicant contends on the reports he wrote for  his  subordinates,
the wing signed as the rater's rater.  However, the applicant did  not
provide the completed reports as evidence or names of the  individuals
he reported on, to verify his contention.

The applicant contends he did  not  receive  feedback  from  the  vice
commander and only informal feedback from  the  wing  commander.   The
lack of counseling of  feedback,  by  itself,  is  not  sufficient  to
challenge the accuracy or justness of a report (Reference AFI 36-2401,
paragraph A1.5.8.).  The ratee shares  the  responsibility  to  ensure
feedback is accomplished and, if necessary, notifies the rater and the
rater's rater when required or requested feedback does not take  place
(Reference AFI 36-2402, paragraph  2.6.1.).   Also,  while  documented
feedback sessions are required, they do not replace  informal  day-to-
day feedback.

The applicant had a report close out 15 Dec 99, while filling the same
position in the wing.  The rater on  that  report  is  also  the  vice
commander; however, the applicant has not challenged the  accuracy  of
the 15 Dec 99 report.  While this point  is  somewhat  moot,  it  does
provide clear evidence that the vice commander was in fact established
as the applicant's rater.

The Air Force policy is an evaluation report is  accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of  record.   The  applicant  states  he  has
contacted the wing commander  he  believes  should  have  written  the
report; however, his efforts for a  new  report  have  been  rejected.
Since there  is  no  computer  generated  documentation  or  evaluator
support, the applicant was not able to prove his contentions.

AFPC/DPPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concur with the findings  in  the  AFPC/DPPP  advisory  and
since that  advisory  recommends  denial,  SSB  consideration  is  not
warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and stated that he  believes  he
exercised due diligence in trying to correct  the  record.   Following
discovery of the errors associated with the OPR in question, and while
still on active duty, he contacted his  former  wing  commander  on  a
number of occasions over the course of a year.  His  desire,  at  that
time, was to have the OPR rewritten and a  corrected  version  entered
into his official record.  Upon being turned down, and by then  having
retired from active duty, he believed removal of the OPR was his  only
option and submitted his request.  He therefore asks the AFBCMR  grant
his request to remove the OPR  from  his  official  record.   If  that
request is granted, it will significantly change his records that  met
the promotion boards, and request re-competition on the  affected  0-6
promotion boards.

Applicant's complete submission, 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 not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the contest  reports  should  be  voided.   Applicant’s
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air  Force.   The
applicant did not present any credible evidence from his rating  chain
or other agencies to support his contention  of  error  or  injustice.
In absence of the necessary evidence, the OERs are assumed  valid  and
accurate.  We agree with the recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of a 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  02-02615
in Executive Session on 29 January 2003, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                 Ms. Martha Evans, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 15 Aug 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Aug 02
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Aug 02.





      PHILIP SHEUERMAN
      Panel Chair