RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00763
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  prepared  for  the  CY01B  Colonel
Central Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF and  that  she
be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B)  Colonel  Central  Selection
Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was  unaware  along  with  the  members  of  her  rating  chain  of  the
requirement to include follow-on assignment and Senior Service School  (SSS)
recommendations on the PRF.  She believes that due to the absence  of  these
recommendations on her PRF, her record was at a  disadvantage  when  it  met
the board and affected her chance for promotion.

In support of her appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 22 January  2003,  AF
Form 709 (Promotion Recommendation Form) prepared for the  CY01B  Board,  AF
Form 709 (Reaccomplished PRF), and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on extended active duty in the grade of  lieutenant
colonel effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 1998.



Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by the CY01B (3 December 2001)  and  the  CY02B  (13 December  2002)
Colonel Selection Board.  She received a “Promote” PRF for both boards.

OPR profile since 1996 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 31 Jul 96        Meets Standards (MS)
                 11 May 97                   (MS)
                 11 May 98                   (MS)
                 11 May 99                   (MS)
                 11 May 00                   (MS)
                 11 May 01                   (MS)
                 11 May 02                   (MS)


_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended  denial.   They  indicated  that  the  applicant  has
provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior  rater  and
management level review (MLR) president as  required.   However,  to  change
Section IV, the senior rater must demonstrate  that  there  was  a  material
error in the PRF, a material error in the ROP  that  substantially  impacted
the content of the PRF or a material error in the process by which  the  PRF
was crafted.  These requirements have not been met.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

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

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that AFPC is  trying  to
unfairly prejudice her chances of getting a fair shake  before  the  AFBCMR.
Her senior rater submitted a letter stating he  erred  in  leaving  out  the
information on SSS and the follow-on  job.   While  these  entries  are  not
required, she has discovered since nonselection that it is  a  clear  signal
to nonselect if they are not in the document.  The Review  Board’s  language
makes it clear that the senior rater, who has the responsibility, should  be
the party to state when an error has been made.  He has  done  this  and  he
has admitted to his error, which is not an easy thing to do.   Clearly  this
was an error and, given the system, the error was a material error.  If  the
facts were, as the Review Board would have  you  believe,  the  addition  of
this language to her PRF would not change the results of the board.

Applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice.  The applicant  contends  that  she  was
unaware along with the members of her rating chain  of  the  requirement  to
include   follow-on   assignment   and   Senior   Service    School    (SSS)
recommendations on the PRF.  She believes that due to the absence  of  these
recommendations on her PRF, her record was at a  disadvantage  when  it  met
the board and affected her chance  for  promotion.   The  letters  from  the
senior rater and the  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)  president  are  duly
noted; however, the Board is of the  opinion  that  the  applicant  has  not
provided evidence that the  senior  rater  was  unaware  of  this  guidance.
Rather,  it  appears  he  chose  not  to  include  any  comments  about  the
applicant’s follow-on assignment and SSS recommendations  on  the  contested
PRF.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we are not convinced  that
the rating official did not render an  accurate  assessment  of  applicant’s
performance and potential at the time the PRF was prepared.  In the  absence
of evidence to the contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
00763 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 February 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 22 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 June 2003.




                                JOESPH A. ROJ
                                Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-00763






MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to , be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation Form
(PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central
Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
her records and the attached PRF, reflecting in Section IV, Promotion
Recommendation, last line, “Top 5% of JAs seen by AETC and 19 AF/JAs; send
to SSS and make her a NAF SJA -- DP if I had one!” be accepted for file in
its place.

          It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to
the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B
Central Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the attached PRF.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
PRF








MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT:

      I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the decision of the AFBCMR panel to deny the applicant’s
requests.

      Applicant was not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by
the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board.  Her senior rater did not
include recommendations for a follow-on assignment or PME on the PRF
prepared for the CY01B board.

      Applicant appealed to the Board requesting a reaccomplished PRF be
placed in her records and she be provided SSB consideration.  She contends
the lack of the recommendations negatively impacted her opportunity for
promotion.  She provides a letter from her senior rater, and concurred in
by the MLR president, attesting to the fact there was an error made on the
PRF by not including a statement regarding job and school recommendations.
Additionally, she provides a reaccomplished PRF.  On June 26, 2003, the
Board denied the request indicating they were not convinced the rating
official did not render an accurate assessment of the applicant’s
performance and potential at the time the PRF was prepared, but rather he
chose not make these recommendations.  I disagree.  In taking this view, it
would appear that the AFBCMR does not accept the statement from the senior
rater that he erred by not including such statements and this was clearly
an oversight on his part, and apparently they do not believe he should have
the opportunity to correct his mistake.  In my view, the applicant’s record
supports the position the senior rater did indeed make a mistake.  The top
OPR for the CY01B board for which he was the additional rater includes a
recommendation for a job and AWC in-residence.  There is no way to
determine with any degree of certainty if these omissions adversely
affected the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  However, the senior
rater’s statement clearly indicates he erred by not including these
recommendations on the PRF he submitted.

      Since the usual standard for approving these types of cases is the
unequivocal support of the applicant’s senior rater and MLR president, I
believe the element of doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.
Accordingly, it is my decision the applicant’s requests be granted.




                 MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                 Assistant Secretary
                 (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)