RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02103

                       COUNSEL: JOSEPH W. KASTL

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 9 June 1998  to
8 June 1999 be corrected to reflect the correct duty title, period  of
report and reason for the report and he receives a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel  for  the  Calendar  Year  1999A  (CY99A)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board and upon promotion, he receives all back pay, and time-
in-grade benefits due.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The errors in his promotion package for the CY99A  Lieutenant  Colonel
Board made it impossible for the board  to  fairly  consider  him  for
promotion. These errors rippled through the personnel system after his
1998 OPR was filed late and then improperly  handled  by  the  records
software.  These errors prevented a new (March 1999) OPR being  loaded
despite a  change  of  station  and  subsequent  change  of  reporting
official, which resulted in his records reflecting an  incorrect  duty
title, Period of Report, and Reason for Report.  Further, his new  OPR
could not be made part of his promotion package, and  there  is  doubt
that the 1998 OPR was not included either.  He believes  these  errors
and omissions were primary reason for his non-selection to  lieutenant
colonel by the CY99A  promotion  board  despite  a  glowing  promotion
recommendation form (PRF).

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a legal brief prepared  by
his counsel, a personal statement, statements from his  rating  chain,
and copies of his promotion recommendation  form,  and  the  contested
OPR.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr  99),  CY99B  (30 Nov  99),
CY00A (28 Nov 00), and CY01B (5 Nov 01) Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Boards.

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  denied  a  similar  appeal
because, although a Change of  Reporting  Official  (CRO)  report  was
initiated, there  was  no  evidence  to  indicate  a  CRO  report  was
completed.  Additionally, since the rater determines the  duty  title,
the ERAB was not convinced the duty title was erroneous without  rater
support.

Applicant’s OPR profile since 1994, follows:

               PERIOD ENDING            EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                         Meets Standards (MS)
            30 Jun 94                           (MS)
            30 Jun 95                           (MS)
            08 Jun 96                           (MS)
            08 Jun 97                           (MS)
            08 Jun 98                           (MS)
          * 08 Jun 99                           (MS)
         ** 09 Jun 00                           (MS)
            14 May 01                           (MS)

*  Top report on file at time of CY99A selection board.
** Top report on file at time of CY99B selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial and states  the  applicant  contends  his
rater authored a CRO  OPR,  but  because  the  computerized  personnel
system would not permit the shell to  be  generated,  the  report  was
never processed.  When a change to the ratee’s supervisor  is  updated
in the Personnel Data System (PDS) and  the  previous  rater  had  the
appropriate number days supervision, an OPR shell is generated.  Since
the rater who signed the proposed Mar 99 CRO report also signed the  8
Jun 99,   8 Jun 00, and 14 May 01 reports, there does not appear to be
a change of rater until after 8 Jun 00.  Therefore,  the  Mar  99  CRO
report was  invalid  and  not  authorized  for  file  in  the  Officer
Selection Record (OSR), even if it had been completed.

The applicant provided a memorandum from his rater  stating  the  duty
title on both the 8 Jun 99 OPR and OSB are incorrect and inconsistent.
 The rater has also indorsed a memorandum from the  applicant  stating
the duty title should  be  “Deputy  Program  Manager,  National  Space
Communications Program.”  However, a review  of  the  applicant’s  key
duties, tasks and responsibilities appear to be  consistent  with  the
current duty title on the 99 OPR.

DPPP indicates the applicant was not scheduled to  receive  an  annual
OPR until 8 Jun 99; therefore, the lack of a report prior to 8 Jun  99
did not put the applicant at a disadvantage  when  he  met  the  CY99A
Central Selection Board (CSB).  Although a draft  CRO  report  closing
out Mar 99 was being prepared, since there was no change of rater, the
report was not required.  Additionally,  the  request  to  change  the
applicant’s duty title to  “Deputy  Program  Manager,  National  Space
Communications Program” is inconsistent with the applicant’s  assigned
duties.

AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the  AFPC/DPPP  advisory,  and
had  nothing  further  to  add.   Since   that   advisory   recommends
disapproval, SSB consideration is not warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel reviewed the evaluation and  stated  that  the
duty remains an issue--it should accurately  reflect  the  duties  and
responsibilities of the applicant.  This did not  occur.   The  “white
bread” title appearing on the challenged  OPR  fails  to  reflect  the
cutting-edge job entrusted to this applicant.  Counsel also provided a
letter of support from the applicant’s purposed reporting official.

Applicant’s counsel  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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice warranting changing  the contested
report to reflect a change in the reporting official and to amend  the
close out date of the report.  Based on the documentation before  this
Board, it appears that the applicant’s rating chain attempted to  have
a current OPR on file prior to the convening of  the  CY99A  selection
board; however, a report was not required to be prepared nor does  the
evidence substantiate that the applicant had  a  change  in  reporting
official.  Therefore, we agree with the comments and recommendation of
the Air Force concerning this issue.  In the absence  of  evidence  to
the contrary, favorable action on his request to  have  the  contested
report amended to reflect a change in reporting officials and a change
to the close out date of the report is not favorably considered.

4.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice in regard to  the  accuracy  of
applicant’s  duty  on  the  contested  report.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, which includes statements from his  rating  chain,
we believe that the duty title on the report  in  question  should  be
changed.  In this respect, it appears  that  the  applicant  performed
duties  as  the  Deputy  Program  Manager  for  the   National   Space
Communications Program and this should  be  his  correct  duty  title.
Therefore, we recommend the OPR closing 8 June 1999 be amended and  in
addition, his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be  corrected.   Based  on
the above corrections to his record, we recommend his corrected report
be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  SSB
for the CY99A selection board.

5.    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  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is 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 AF Form  707A,  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance
Report, rendered for the period 9 June 1998 through 8  June  1999,  be
amended to reflect that the duty title in Section III  be  changed  to
reflect  “Deputy  Program  Manager,  National   Space   Communications
Program.”

            b.  The Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)  prepared  for  the
Calendar Year 1999A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be  amended  to
reflect  a  duty   of   Deputy   Program   Manager,   National   Spece
Communications Program, effective 1 March 1999.

It is further recommended that his records, as amended, be  considered
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special  Selection
Board for the CY99A Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  02-02103
in Executive Session on 26 February 2003, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, Member
            Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

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

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 25 Nov 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Nov 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Counsel Response, undated.




            CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
            Panel Chair