RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03649
            INDEX CODE 111.01  131.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 24 Jun 95  through
23 Jun 96 be corrected  to  reflect  professional  military  education
(PME) recommendation for Senior  Service  School  (SSS),  rather  than
Intermediate Service School (ISS), his nonselections for promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside, and he be given  Special
Selection Board  (SSB)  consideration  for  the  Calendar  Year  1999A
(CY99A)  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  and  for  all
subsequent promotion boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) corrected his  OPR  closing
23 Jun 98 but not the contested report.  The problem with  PME  levels
arose when AFPC changed its PME selection policy  in  1992.  Initially
under  the  Officer  Evaluation  System  (OES),  PME  selections  were
decoupled from promotion selections. However, beginning in  1992,  PME
selections were recoupled with promotion boards, i.e. for ISS, the top
20% of the majors could be nominated for resident ISS. This was  later
amended, allowing no more than 3% of  officers  to  be  nominated  for
resident PME “outside” the “pool  of  candidates”  identified  at  the
consolidated promotion/PME boards. The ERAB’s decision  to  amend  his
1998 OPR confirms that SSS is appropriate for majors like himself  who
were not initially identified for ISS in conjunction with promotion.

The rater and additional rater of the contested OPR provide statements
contending that the correct PME level on the report should  have  been
for SSS rather than ISS.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was promoted to major with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug
95. According to HQ AFPC/DPPE (see Exhibit C), AFPC/DPAPE verified the
applicant was eligible to meet ISS boards in 1995, 1996 and 1997.

The applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99),  CY99B  (30  Nov
99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B  (5  Nov  01),  and  CY02B  (12 Nov  02)
selection boards.  The Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs)  for  the
CY99A, CY99B and CY00A selection boards  include  recommendations  for
SSS. All the PRFs have overall recommendations of  “Promote.”  He  was
selected for continuation on 10 Apr 00.

The applicant’s OPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
                23 Jun 94            Meets Standards
                23 Jun 95            Meets Standards
            *   23 Jun 96            Meets Standards
                23 Jun 97            Meets Standards
            #   23 Jun 98            Meets Standards
                 9 Feb 99            Meets Standards
            ##  17 Sep 99            Meets Standards
            ###  1 Mar 00            Meets Standards
            #### 1 Mar 01            Meets Standards
            #####1 Mar 02            Meets Standards

*Contested Report
# Top report for CY99A board
## Top report for CY99B board
### Top report for CY00A board
#### Top report for CY01B board
##### Top report for CY02B board

The OPRs closing  23  Jun  94,  95  and  96  (contested)  contain  PME
recommendations for ISS.  The OPR closing 23 Jun 97 recommends SSS  in
residence. The OPR closing 23 Jun 98 originally recommended  ISS.  The
reports  closing  9  Feb  99,  17  Sep  99,  and  1 Mar   00   reflect
recommendations for SSS.

The applicant filed a similar appeal regarding the contested  OPR  and
the report closing 23 Jun 98. On 25 Jul 02, the ERAB approved changing
the 23 Jun 98 OPR to read “SSS” rather than “ISS” but denied  amending
the 23 Jun 96 report, indicating the applicant was  not  eligible  for
SSS at that time.  However, the ERAB did not believe the change to the
23 Jun 98 OPR significant enough to warrant SSB consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE indicates the applicant contends he  was  ineligible  to
attend ISS (in residence) simply because he was neither selected as  a
candidate nor as a non-candidate. The applicant feels that he did  not
have  a  “real”  chance  to  be  selected  as  a   non-candidate   for
consideration to attend ISS in residence.  Just  because  the  numbers
did not favor his selection as a non-candidate, does  not  render  him
ineligible.  The applicant’s senior rater could have nominated him (if
deserving) as a non-candidate to attend ISS in  residence  during  the
time the applicant’s OPR closed out; therefore, it is clear  that  the
applicant was indeed eligible for ISS when his 23 Jun  96  OPR  closed
out.  The appropriate PME recommendation for his 23 Jun 96 OPR was ISS
since he had not completed ISS and was still eligible to  attend  (in-
residence). Any change to  the  PME  recommendation  would  cause  the
contested OPR to be inaccurate. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing further to add to  DPPPE’s  advisory.  Since
that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts the ERAB ordered correction of [the  23  Jun  98
OPR] because of the wrong level of PME recommended just as on  his  23
Jun 96 report. This effectively confirms his record was flawed when it
met the CY99A  board  and  entitles  him  to  SSB  consideration.  The
applicant  contends  AFPC’s  own  guidance  states  that  SSS  is  the
appropriate PME to recommend for a major. Further, AFPC’s own briefing
confirms there are apparently many PME recommendation errors  on  OPRs
as selection board members have noted this as a detractor. His  former
senior rater  has  stated  he  intended  to  recommend  him  for  SSS.
Regardless of what is decided on the contested 23 Jun 96  report,  the
23 Jun 98 OPR amended by the ERAB should warrant SSB consideration.

The 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 to warrant altering the 23 Jun  96
OPR to reflect a PME recommendation of “SSS”  rather  than  “ISS”  and
granting  SSB  consideration  for  the  CY99A  selection  board.   The
applicant’s contentions and  the  supporting  statements  were  noted.
However, as pointed out by the Air Force, the applicant  was  eligible
to meet the 1995, 1996, 1997 ISS boards. Further, merely  because  the
numbers did not favor his selection as a non-candidate to  attend  ISS
in residence did not render him ineligible. The senior  rater,  if  so
inclined, could have nominated him as a non-candidate to attend ISS in
residence during the time the contested OPR closed out.  Finally,  the
23 Jul 96 report  appears  to  have  the  correct  PME  recommendation
because the applicant had not completed ISS,  was  still  eligible  to
attend ISS in residence, and was not eligible for SSS at that time. In
our view, the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of  having
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view  of  the  above  and
absent persuasive evidence to the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    We also noted  in  his  rebuttal  the  applicant  requested  SSB
consideration for the CY99A  selection  board  on  the  basis  of  the
administratively amended 23 Jun 98 OPR. However,  we  agree  with  the
ERAB’s determination that the change in the  PME  recommendation  from
“ISS” to “SSS” is  not  significant  enough  to  warrant  SSB  review.
Further, while the applicant appears to  believe  the  original  “ISS”
recommendation was the cause of his nonselection, he has not  provided
persuasive evidence that his record was so  inaccurate  or  misleading
that the duly constituted  selection  board  was  unable  to  reach  a
reasonable decision concerning his promotability  in  relationship  to
his peers, particularly since this information was  reflected  on  the
PRF prepared for the board’s review.

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 issues involved. Therefore,
the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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  in
Executive Session on 15 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03649 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, received 4 Mar 03,
                   w/atchs.



                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair