RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01307
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for  the  CY02B  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board be replaced with a  reaccomplished  PRF  and
that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  a
Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year   2002B   (CY02B)
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Per AFI 36-2401, he believes the contested PRF was written unjustly  because
it does not accurately reflect the promotion potential in his records.   The
PRF was wrongly endorsed by the 81st Wing  Commander  due  to  his  lack  of
observation time and his refusal to seek out second opinions after  he  made
a formal request for him to do so.  In addition, the senior  rater  did  not
know him and based his signature upon his  supervisor  (at  the  time)  that
unjustly wrote a poor PRF.  The senior rater refused to answer his  inquires
about the PRF that he addressed per AFI 36-2406.  The senior  rater  refused
to tell him if he  saw  his  whole  record  before  he  signed  the  in-the-
promotion zone (IPZ) PRF.

The IPZ PRF seemingly took him out of competition and did  not  give  him  a
fair  chance  to  compete.   The  net  result  was  that   the   indifferent
recommendation in the last line of the IPZ PRF, along with the  entire  PRF,
sent a signal to the board of mediocrity rather than a true picture  of  his
performance and potential.  At the least, it was  professional  incompetence
from a new Group Commander who had no  experience  writing  a  PRF  at  that
level.

He further indicates that he is not asking for an automatic promotion,  just
a chance to meet another board with a new PRF  from  his  current  chain  of
command.


In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  a
copy of the contested Promotion Recommendation Form prepared for  the  CY02B
Lieutenant Colonel Board, letter from the former 81st Wing Commander,  dated
27 March 2003, letter from the former 81st Vice  Wing  Commander,  dated  10
March 2003, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 1999.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by  the  CY02B  (12  November  2002)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards.

OPR profile since 1996 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 19 Oct 96        Meets Standards (MS)
                 31 Aug 97                   (MS)
                 31 Aug 98                   (MS)
                 31 Aug 99                   (MS)
                 10 May 00                   (MS)
                 10 May 01                   (MS)
                 10 May 02                   (MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated that the  applicant  has  not
provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior  rater  and
management level president as required.  To change section  IV,  the  senior
rater must demonstrate that there  was  a  material  error  in  the  PRF,  a
material error  in  the  record  of  performance  (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 have  reviewed  the
findings in the 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 EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations  and  indicated  that  AFPC/DPPPE  is
mistaken about  the  requirement  to  provide  a  new  PRF  with  supportive
documentation from the  senior  rater  and  management  level  president  as
required.  They seem to be referring to the AF  Form  948  process  for  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The AF Form  948  process  for  the
ERAB would be for an administrative error type of correction and a  new  PRF
would be processed from the old chain of  command  that  signed  off  on  it
originally.  In other words, the old chain of command would have  to  “auto-
correct” itself.  This appeal is not based on an  administrative  error  but
on an unfair promotion potential assessment.

The summary by AFPC/DPPPE suggests that the senior rater on his IPZ PRF  has
to decide by himself that he was unfair.   What  he’s  seeking  is  a  third
party judgment via AFI 36-2603 (AFBCMR).  AFPC/DPPPE is wrongly  referencing
AFI 36-2401, Table 3 (Correcting AF  Form  709,  Promotion  Recommendation).
He is not requesting to change  section  IV,  he  is  seeking  judgment  IAW
paragraph  A1.6.21.   Voiding  a  PRF,  which  states,  “You  must   provide
substantial evidence proving the PRF does  not  contain  a  valid  promotion
potential assessment and that it is not possible to correct the  form.”   He
indicates that he has submitted this evidence with his appeal.

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  probable  error  or   injustice   warranting   relief.    The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after a thorough review  of
the evidence submitted with this appeal,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
contested PRF is either in error or unjust.   The  applicant  contends  that
the PRF was written unjustly and does not accurately reflect  his  promotion
potential.  The Board  notes  that  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any
supporting documentation from the rating chain.  The Board also  notes  that
the applicant has provided supporting statements  from  individuals  outside
the rating chain; however, these individuals  were  not  in  a  position  to
evaluate the applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested  period.   The
Board would be willing to reconsider the applicant’s appeal if  he  provided
supporting documentation from his senior rater along with  a  reaccomplished
PRF signed by his senior rater during  the  contested  time  period.   There
being insufficient evidence to the contrary, the Board finds  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-
01307 in Executive Session on 30 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                  Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 April 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 July 2003, w/atch.




                                ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                Panel Chair