RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02718
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 111.05,
                                              131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period  25 April
1996 through 24 April 1997, be  declared  void  and  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished report; his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the
CY98B Central Colonel Selection Board be replaced  with  a  substitute
PRF; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be  corrected  to  reflect  HAF
instead of HAFF; and he be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for  the  Calendar
Year  1998B  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  and   all
subsequent boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His 24 April 1997 OPR is inaccurate, misleading, and  includes  duties
for  which  he  was  not  responsible.   In   addition   it   includes
achievements not his and omits his  most  significant  accomplishments
during that one-year period.  His senior rater evaluated his record of
performance during the CY98B cycle with  that  erroneous  OPR  in  his
record; additionally the senior rater evaluated his record with  other
errors in the promotion recommendation form  itself.   The  misleading
information evaluated by the senior  rater  resulted  in  a  far  less
competitive promotion recommendation for the  CY98B  selection  board.
The senior officials  in  his  rating  chain  have  all  come  forward
willingly to support correcting the errors in his record.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy  of  the  contested
report, 15 character references, including statements by the review of
the contested report and the senior rater of the contested PRF, a copy
of the contested PRFs, a copy of the reaccomplished OPR, and a copy of
the reaccomplished PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

At the time the applicant submitted his application he was 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 CY98B, CY99A,  CY99B,  CY00A,  and  CY01B
central lieutenant colonel selection boards.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1991 through  2001
reflect meets standards on all performance factors.

On 31 December 2002, the applicant was relieved from active  duty  and
retired in the grade of major,  effective  1  January  2003.   He  had
served 20 years, 6 months and 17 days of active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP  states  in   reference   to   the   applicant   providing
documentation that shows the additional  rater  was  given  an  option
between receiving an Article 15 and retiring, the significance of this
information  is  unclear  and  seems  to  be  aimed  at  defaming  the
additional rater.  The reason for the administrative action  taken  on
the additional rater was related to  a  personal  matter  and  not  an
indication of the additional rater’s ability to accurately assess  the
applicant’s performance.  Therefore, the mention of the administrative
action was unnecessary and  inappropriate.   Furthermore,  it  is  not
clear how the fact that the  additional  rater  was  relieved  of  his
duties in January 1999 had any impact on his ability to render a  fair
and accurate assessment on a performance report in April 1997  (nearly
two years earlier).

The reviewer on the report has read the same documentation provided in
this report and as a result supports the appeal.   While  DPPPEP  does
not necessarily  agree  with  the  reviewer  about  whether  there  is
sufficient data to warrant rewriting the report, it  must  be  pointed
out that the proposed OPR is  invalid.   Changing  an  evaluator  (the
additional rater) because the original evaluator has separated and  is
considered hostile is not an appropriate reason to remove him  from  a
rating chain.  Especially in light of  the  fact  that  the  applicant
addressed his concerns about the OPR prior to the  additional  rater’s
separation, and the additional rater remained adamant that the  report
remain as is.  The additional rater made his wishes and opinions known
on the report and it would be inappropriate for the reviewer to remove
him as an evaluator because he disagrees and  refuses  to  change  his
assessment  on  a  report.   Therefore,  they  recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request to have the contested report substituted.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPEB states that in reference to the applicant’s assertion that
the senior  rater  signed  the  PRF  based  on  an  incorrect  officer
performance report and  without  knowledge  of  several  major  career
achievements, the senior rater could have included the accomplishments
in the applicant’s original PRF without it  being  documented  in  the
record of performance.  The senior rater may consider  other  reliable
information about the performance.  Also, the applicant did not  state
what actions he took prior to the central selection board(CSB) to  get
these actions corrected.

In summary, the applicant has  provided  a  new  PRF  with  supportive
documentation from the senior rater  and  MLR  president.   To  change
Section IV, the  senior  rater  must  demonstrate  that  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
addition, the applicant must demonstrate  he  took  corrective  action
prior to the CSB.  These requirements were not met.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO states that the applicant is contending that  his  OSB  for
the CY98A and all subsequent boards  reflected  an  incorrect  command
level for his duty title entry effective 20 June 1997.  They point out
that each officer eligible  for  promotion  by  the  CY98A  board  and
subsequent boards received an officer preselection brief (OPB)  90-100
days prior to the central board convening date.  The OPB contains data
that  will  appear  on  the  OSB  at  the  central   board.    Written
instructions contained in the  Military  Personnel  Flight  Memorandum
(MPFM) attached to the OPB,  and  given  to  the  officer  before  the
central  selection  board,  specifically  instruct  the   officer   to
carefully examine the brief for  completeness  and  accuracy.   If  he
finds any  errors,  he  must  take  corrective  action  prior  to  the
selection board, not after it.  The instructions  specifically  state,
“Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board  if,  in
exercising reasonable diligence, the officer  should  have  discovered
the error or omission in his/her records and could have  taken  timely
corrective  action.”   Since  he  has  not   demonstrated   reasonable
diligence in the maintenance of  his  records,  they  do  not  support
promotion reconsideration on this issue.  The applicant  must  contact
his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to have the correct command  level
entry  updated  in  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System   (MilPDS).
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.


A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and comments on  each
advisory.  He disagrees with the  recommendations  made  by  the  AFPC
staff in the three advisory opinions.  Some of what  they  provide  as
facts are incorrect.  In most parts of those opinions, AFPC  officials
failed to acknowledge or recognize the strong evidence supporting  his
appeal.  Their recommendations and conclusions ignored  the  detailed,
specific evidence provided by  Senior  and  General  Officers  in  his
rating chain of command at the time the OPR and PRF he  is  contesting
were written and signed.  HQ AFPC officials also ignored the  evidence
provided by others in positions to comment on those reports.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit
G.

_________________________________________________________________

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  reviewing  all  the
evidence, we are not persuaded that approval of the corrections to the
selection  record  the  applicant  seeks  is  warranted.    The   most
significant documents provided for our review are  the  statements  by
the reviewer of the contested report  and  the  senior  rater  of  the
contested PRF.  In essence, these officers depend on the statements of
others  not  in  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  to   support   their
recommendation for approval  of  the  substitution  of  the  contested
reports with reaccomplished reports.  We are not convinced by  any  of
the statements provided that the information contained in the  reports
were  inaccurate  assessments  of  the  applicant’s  performance   and
promotion potential at the time they were prepared.  Rather, it is our
opinion that the statements constitute a well-meaning attempt by these
individuals to enhance the applicant’s  promotability.   The  detailed
comments of the Air Force appear to adequately address the applicant’s
allegations  and  we  are  in  agreement  with  their   comments   and
recommendation.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to   the
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on
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 this application, Docket
No. BC-2002-02718, in Executive Session on 19 March  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb , Member
                       Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 25 Sep 02.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 1 Nov 02.
      Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Dec 02.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Dec 02.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Response, dated 14 Jan 03, w/atch.




                             ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                             Panel Chair