RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03876

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears that the applicant is requesting  the  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods  11 March  1997  to  10  March
1998 and 11 March 1998 to 10 March  1999,  and  the  P0600A  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for
promotion to the grade of colonel for the Calendar Year 2001B  (CY01B)
Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion resulted because two of his  OPRs  from
AFROTC did not reflect his true performance  and  potential,  and  the
omission, to some degree, of stratification and command  push  in  the
PRF that met the CY01B Colonel Selection Board.

His tenure in AFROTC was truly outstanding…his rater unjustly  omitted
command/assignment push because  of  false  allegations  and  personal
biases.  He submits  his  before  and  after  OPRs  as  proof  of  his
performance,  accomplishments,  and   potential   to   highlight   the
injustice.  He has also enclosed results of an investigation (he would
like to explain in person/detail at a board  appearance)  that  caused
his rater to  bias  his  OPRs.   Relative  to  his  PRF,  wing  senior
leadership did not intend to send a message  to  the  board  that  his
current  performance  and  past  service  were  anything   less   than
exemplary.  Due the fog and fiction caused by  9/11,  it’s  aftermath,
and the date of the selection board, wing leadership just didn’t  take
the extraordinary steps and time to ensure his  PRF  included  command
push and stratification.  With “command push” in  his  top  OPR,  they
truly believed the PRF sent the right message…to promote!

He doesn’t believe he should be penalized for his ROTC boss’s  tainted
personal opinions when  his  before  and  after  OPRs  attest  to  his
accomplishments and potential or be denied promotion  because  of  the
lack of attention to detail in his PRF.  Throughout a long career,  he
has accomplished with success, all the things the Air Force has  asked
him to do…he stayed in the field and led (they all couldn’t attend PME
in-residence), mentored, and  held  command  five  times;  gained  the
breath and depth of experience needed/required  at  the  06  level  in
today’s AF.

He asks the Board to consider this request favorably and  correct  the
gross injustice caused by personal biases and the fog and  fiction  of
war.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of OPRs and  an  IG
report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 1 September 1997.

Applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to  the  grade
of colonel by the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board.

The applicant’s OPR profile since 1996:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 06 Jun 96        Meets Standards (MS)
                 10 Mar 97                   MS
      *          10 Mar 98                   MS
      *          10 Mar 99                   MS
                 10 Mar 00                   MS
                 18 Aug 00                   MS
                 18 Aug 01                   MS
                 18 Apr 02                   MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommend denied.  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  OPRs.   The  applicant
requests that the AFBCMR void his OPRs based on the fact that the OPRs
are lacking PME and assignment recommendations.  He has  not  provided
any evidence to support his allegation that the omissions of  PME  and
assignment recommendations were the  result  of  bias.   Further,  the
applicant has not provided a new PRF with senior rater and  management
level review president’s concurrence as required.

The applicant contends that the 10 March 1998 and 10 March  1999  OPRs
didn’t reflect his true performance and potential and that the lack of
PME and assignment recommendations had a significant impact on his non-
selection for promotion.  The applicant  has  failed  to  provide  any
comments from anyone within his rating chain.  The  applicant  alleges
his rater was biased towards him; however, he has  failed  to  provide
any  documentation  in  support  of  his  allegation.   While  he  has
submitted a memorandum from the IG indicating allegations against  him
were not substantiated, that does  not  prove  the  rating  chain  was
biased against him.  The letter does not detail any specifics  to  the
investigation and no other evidence  has  been  submitted.   There  is
evidence that his rating chain could have felt that the applicant  was
not ready for continued PME or a command assignment (evidenced by  his
previous evaluation containing PME  and  assignment  recommendations).
It is reasonable to believe  that  the  applicant  failed  to  provide
comments from the rating chain as those comments could bring to  light
their  specific  reasons  for  not  recommending  continued  PME   and
assignment recommendations.

The applicant contends that he was non-selected for promotion  because
of the omissions of stratification and command push in his P0601B PRF.
 He has not provided any statements  from  his  Senior  Rater  or  MLR
President  to  support  his   allegation   that   the   omission   was
unintentional.  Rewrites to Section IV simply  to  include  different,
but previously known  or  documented  accomplishments  are  not  valid
reasons to appeal a PRF.

AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They reviewed the AFPC/DPPPE  advisory
and have nothing further  to  add.   Since  that  advisory  recommends
denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 28 February 2003, for review and  comment.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an 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 evidence from his rating chain or  other
agencies to support his contention of error  or  injustice.    In  the
absence of the necessary evidence, the  OPRs  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.

4.    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 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  BC-2003-
01673 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Jan 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Feb 03
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.




      RICHARD A. PETERSON
      Panel Chair