RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01200

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for  the  period  11  April  1998
through 10 April 1999 be declared void and removed  from  his  records
and  he  receive  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY01B  and  CY02B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR for the period ending 10 April 1999 included false statements,
did not reflect accomplishments during the entire  performance  period
based on command, wing and squadron remarks.  No one has been  willing
to give him a  Definitely  Promote  on  the  Promotion  Recommendation
worksheet.

In support of the his appeal, he submits an index of  attachments,  an
executive summary statement, OPRs, a personal data  sheet,  nomination
for awards, recommendation for  decorations  and  awards,  letters  of
appreciation, a letter from HQ ACC/IGQ and a copy  of  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) action.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

The applicant had two nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel
by the CY01B and CY02B lieutenant central colonel selection boards.

The applicant submitted an appeal regarding the 10 April 1999  OPR  to
the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). His request  was  reviewed
by the ERAB and determined that the  applicant  did  not  provide  any
supporting documentation from the evaluators stating the report should
be corrected to include missing accomplishments  or  that  the  report
should be voided.

The applicant’s OPR profile since 1996:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 13 May 96        Meets Standards (MS)
                 13 May 97                   MS
      *          10 Apr 98                   MS
      *          10 Apr 99                   MS
                 10 Apr 00                   MS
                 10 Apr 01                   MS
                 10 Apr 02                   MS
                 25 Jan 03                   MS

* Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommended  denial  and  states  that   the   applicant’s
contention  that  his  report  includes  false  information  is   only
supported by his opinion.  In a memo provided by  the  applicant,  the
additional rater states, “Although the applicant has provided a  great
deal of data to counter the evaluation provided, he has not  found  it
sufficient to change  his  stance.”   Further,  the  additional  rater
states the applicant failed to provide enough evidence to support  the
claims of Personality Conflict, Undue Emphasis on Isolated  Incidents,
and Evaluation Inconsistent with Decorations.   The  applicant  merely
provided his opinion that each of these claims about  his  report  was
substantiated.

The applicant provided a large list of accolades  and  accomplishments
that he believes should have been included on the report; however, the
rating chain decides what information to include on  the  report,  not
the ratee.   The  evaluators  clearly  believe  the  information  they
included on the report  best  reflected  the  applicant’s  performance
during the reporting period.  While the applicant has provided  copies
of awards he contends support his allegations, many are “team”  awards
and the individual awards do  not  cover  the  entire  rating  period.
Further, it actually appears from reading the first bullet in Sections
IV  and  VI  that  the  evaluators  give  credit  for   the   flight’s
accomplishments to  others  in  the  flight—not  the  applicant.   The
applicant further states that the report caused him to be  nonselected
for promotion; however, again, there is  no  evidence  to  prove  this
other than his own opinion.

The applicant has provided a statement from a colonel assigned  to  HQ
ACC/IGQ stating, “His 1999 lackluster officer performance report, with
downgraded remarks, greatly influenced…” their decision  to  give  the
applicant a “promote” recommendation.   The  fact  that  it  may  have
influence their decision, however, does not make the contested  report
an inaccurate assessment.  Like all other officers  meeting  promotion
boards, the “whole record” is considered when deciding what  promotion
recommendation to award the officers.  When officers do not receive  a
“definitely promote” recommendation, it does not  mean  one  of  their
reports is inaccurate (only that other  officers  “whole  record”  was
stronger).  We also note that the endorser of the letter  is  not  the
Senior Rater who  endorsed  the  “promote”  PRF.   Further,  there  is
nothing to  indicate  that  even  without  the  contested  report  the
applicant’s “whole record” would have been strong enough to support  a
“definitely promote.”

Air Force policy is an evaluation report is accurate as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant was originally denied by
the ERAB based on the simple fact that  he  provided  no  evidence  to
prove his contentions.  Now the applicant  has  included  several  new
reasons the report is inaccurate; however, he has provided nothing but
his opinion to support the  contentions.   It’s  easy  for  anyone  to
allege that something is wrong with  a  performance  report,  but  the
applicants must support their allegations with some kind of  evidence.
In this case, the applicant has failed to do so.  The additional rater
has even reviewed the applicant’s documentation and still stands  firm
on the report as originally rendered.

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the AFPC/DPPPE  advisory  and,
since that  advisory  recommends  denial,  SSB  consideration  is  not
warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO 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
15 August 2003, for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
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 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-
01200 in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Alowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member
                 Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Jul 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Aug 03
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.





      ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR
      Panel Chair