RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03726
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In two separate applications, applicant makes the following requests:

The Duty Title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  for
the period 30 Jul 98 through 1 Apr 99 be corrected to reflect  “ABCCC
Enhancements Officer and EC-130E Pilot.”

The duty description in Block III of his OPR rendered for the  period
30 Jul 98 through 1 Apr  99  be  amended  to  add  at  the  beginning
“Oversees software installation and hardware configuration  of  ABCCC
mission  systems  and  training   facilities.”    Delete   the   line
“SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL DUTY:  ABCCC Enhancements Officer.”

The Duty Title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  for
the period 2 Apr 00 through 30 Mar 01 be corrected to reflect  “Chief
of Life Support and EC-130E Pilot.”

The duty description in Block III of his OPR rendered for the  period
2 Apr 00 through 30 Mar 01 be amended to  replace  the  section  that
reads,  “Manages  all  aspects  of  squadron  plans,  exercises,  and
contingency   mission   planning.    Develops   briefs,    maintains,
coordinates, and monitors all war,  exercise,  support,  contingency,
and programming plans to support the wing’s mission.  Supervises  two
NCOs and one airman executing plans and exercise duties.  Replace the
section with “Manages $90K annual facilities, equipment, and training
budget supporting 230 combat aircrew.  Instructs normal and emergency
life support-related procedures and maintains life  support  training
currencies for all  squadron  and  attached  personnel.   Coordinates
equipment upgrades.  Supervises three NCOs and five airmen.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In support of his appeal, applicant provides copies  of  his  earlier
appeals that were denied  by  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB), copies  of  the  contested  OPRs,  and  statements  from  his
additional rater validating  the  changes  to  the  duty  titles  and
descriptions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
captain.  His Total  Active  Federal  Active  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 15 Oct 92.  The applicant was considered but not selected
for promotion to major by the CY02B Central Major Selection Board  (3
Oct 02).  On 30 Aug 02, the applicant filed a similar appeal with the
ERAB.  The ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal on 16 Oct 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommends that the applicant’s requests be  denied.   They
support the earlier decisions of the ERAB.  There is  not  sufficient
justification to change duty titles along with supporting key duties,
tasks, and responsibilities.  A retrospective view by raters after  a
report is rendered does not make the original assessment and comments
inaccurate.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as  written
when it  becomes  a  matter  of  record.   There  are  no  errors  or
injustices cited in the 1 Apr 99 OPR.  They  fully  concur  with  the
ERAB’s decision.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant
on 24 Jan 03 for review and comment  within  30  days.   To  date,  a
response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPPE and  AFPC/DPPPO  provided
additional Air Force evaluations.


AFPC/DPPPE  in  their  original   evaluation   only   addressed   the
applicant’s OPR closing 1 Apr 99.   In  the  revised  advisory,  they
address both the OPR closing 1 Apr 99 and 30 Mar 01.  They  recommend
denial of the applicant’s requests  regarding  both  reports.   There
rationale is the same as stated in the earlier evaluation.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO provided an additional evaluation to address  whether  the
applicant should be considered for promotion by SSB.

They recommend denial of the applicant’s consideration for  promotion
by SSB.  The applicant is being considered for promotion by  the  SSB
convening on 19 May 03 due to the omission of his bachelor degree and
incorrect  professional  military  education  data  on  his   Officer
Selection Brief (OSB).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the
applicant on 30 May for review and comment within 30 days.  To  date,
a response has been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error  or  injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
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 Docket Number  BC-2002-
03726 in Executive Session on 2 July 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 02, w/atchs;
                DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAO, dated 16 Dec 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 9 Jan 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 03.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 15 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 May 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 03.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair