RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01843
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for  the  period  11
April 1999 through 10 April 2000, be declared void and replaced with a
reaccomplished OER.

2.  By amendment at Exhibit G, the promotion recommendation form (PRF)
prepared for consideration by the CY01B Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Board be removed from his records and replaced with  a  reaccomplished
PRF containing definitely promote DP recommendation.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel
by Special Selection Boards for the Calendar Years 2001 (CY01B),  2002
(CY02B) and 2003 (CY03A) central lieutenant colonel selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to OPR late processing through the  unified  command  system,  his
performance report did not receive proper endorsements  in  accordance
with SC-Reg 623-1.  The facts are:  (1) At time  of  report  closeout,
his senior rater, by Reg SC 623-1 was the Deputy  Commander  in  Chief
(DCINC).  (2) The DCINC, MG V-----,  USA,  PCS’d  80  days  after  OPR
required closeout.  (3) The new DCINC changed the  endorsement  policy
after taking office.  (4) His report was processed more than  90  days
late, and SOUTHCOM closed the report for their convenience rather than
contact  the  departed  DCINC.   (5)  Omission  of  DCINC  validation,
compared to the job sent strong negative signal to promotion board.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  copy  of  the  original
OPR, a copy of the revised OPR, and  a  letter  of  support  from  the
USSOUTHCOM Air Force Element Commander.

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 of 1 March 1998.  He
has an established date of separation of 31 March 2006.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B, CY02B, and CY03A (5 November 2001,
12 November 2002 and 8 July 2003) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection
Boards.  Applicant’s Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  from  1991
through 2002 reflect meets standards on all performance factors.

On 16 October 2002, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  denied
applicant’s request to substitute the contested OPR and  the  PRF  for
the CY01B Central Selection Board.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states  that  while  a  copy  of  the  SOUTHCOM  regulation
effective 1 January 2001 was provided to the ERAB,  no  regulation  or
any other document was provided to indicate exactly  what  the  policy
was prior to that date.  AF policy according to  AFI  36-2402  states,
when the reviewer is also the rater, then place  comments  in  section
VI.  The statement “The Rater is also the Reviewer” will be placed  in
section   VIII.    As   such,   the   report   should   be   corrected
administratively since it states “Additional rater is also  reviewer.”
Further, the only documentation submitted by the  applicant  that  the
omissions of DCINC validation sent a strong  negative  signal  to  the
promotion board was his own opinion.

DPPPE indicated that the Senior Rater signed the  report  on  10 April
2000.  Although the applicant contends that the individual was not yet
a Senior Rater, and as such not allowed to  closeout  the  report,  no
documentation has been provided to  indicate  exactly  what  effective
date  he  became  a  senior  rater.   Therefore,  the  report  has  no
inaccuracies under AF policy.  Also, the General  Officer  who  signed
the report as the Air Force Advisor was not heard from.  His  job  was
to ensure the report was prepared correctly.  The bottom line is  they
found no evidence to  doubt  that  the  report  was  not  accomplished
correctly and under the correct guidance as signed by  the  Air  Force
Advisor.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s  request
to substitute the report; however, recommend correcting  Section  VIII
of the report to read “Rater is also Reviewer.”   Because  that  is  a
minor administrative correction to the report, they strongly recommend
denial of SSB consideration.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that they have nothing further to  add.   Therefore,
they recommend denial of applicant’s  request.   Their  evaluation  is
attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 26 September 2003, the applicant submitted a letter  requesting  an
additional 30 days in order  to  properly  build  an  appeal.   On  30
September 2003, the applicant was notified that  his  case  was  being
administratively closed.  In accordance with his request, the case has
been reopened (Exhibit F).

On 20 October 2003, the applicant states that due to an administrative
error, US Southern Command submitted a PRF for an individual  who  did
not complete his professional  military  education  (PME).   Having  a
Unified Command come on line and admit a  mistake  is  difficult;  yet
even when it occurs, AFPC doesn’t seem to allow a change, despite  AFI
36-2401, Para A1.6 allowing such provisions.

The ERAB’s contention is that  it  wouldn’t  be  fair  to  other  non-
selected officers to allow a switch after the board convened.  If  so,
why do we have supplemental boards at all?  His point is his promotion
package was at a disadvantage  for  two  reasons.   First,  he  didn’t
receive an earned DP due to administrative  errors  (USSOUTHCOM’s  own
words).  Secondly, when competing as a ‘P’ his report did not  receive
a proper endorsement due to late processing, omitting  five  lines  of
hard-hitting facts that weren’t available to the USAF promotion  board
which  set  a  negative  tone  in  comparison  to  that  of  his   job
description.  He states, this tone held true despite receiving the PRF
endorsement; “If SOUTHCOM had one more DP, it would be Major  H---‘s!”


The  ERAB  also   concluded   MLR   makes   decisions   on   promotion
recommendations based on data in the official records … facts,  “(n)ot
on speculative  info  on  what  might  happen.”   The  individual  who
received the DP didn’t complete his appropriate  PME.   That  was  the
fact in his official record.  He states that this seems to  contradict
the ERAB’s conclusion about how MLBs made their decision.

In short, USSOUTHCOM has both tried to change his official record  and
has changed their regulation  to  ensure  their  guidance  meets  USAF
guidance.

Promotion board decisions are difficult and all qualified  people  are
not always  selected.   His  point  is  that  he  was  prevented  from
competing fairly.  He believes he has proven himself at the 0-5  level
in the job he’s holding, the previous position assigned at US Southern
Command, and his recent nomination for an  0-5,  leadership  position.
Having been non-selected for 0-5  limits  his  ability  to  meet  USAF
needs, (as exemplified  as  being  non-selected  for  the  above-cited
leadership position).

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We note the supporting
statement  submitted  from  the   applicant’s   current   Acquisition
Examiner/Air  Force  Advisor.   This  individual  states   that   the
contested OPR was inappropriately closed out at  a  lower  level  and
supports substitution of the report.  We believe  it  is  significant
that the applicant’s  rating  chain  consisted  of  individuals  from
another branch of the armed forces who were unfamiliar with Air Force
rating policies and the impact such circumstances would have  on  the
applicant’s promotion opportunities.  In view of this portion of  the
above-cited statement mentioned in the foregoing and in an effort  to
remove any possibility of an injustice, the contested OPR  should  be
declared void and replaced with the reaccomplished report provided by
the applicant.  Further, he should also be considered  for  promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the
CY01B, CY02B and CY03A selection boards.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.   Applicant’s  request
to have his PRF  removed  from  his  records  and  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished  report  containing   a   definitely   promote   (DP)
recommendation was considered; however, we are not persuaded by  the
evidence presented that favorable consideration of that  portion  of
the appeal is warranted.  We note that the applicant has  failed  to
provide documentation in the form of a statement by his senior rater
to support this portion of his appeal.  In addition, we  have  noted
the comments of the MLRB president and do not  find,  at  this  late
date, that his rationale, i.e., the plan to switch ratings post-MLRB
based on events occurring after the MLRB  adjourned,  sufficient  to
favorably consider what in essence is a  request  to  “upgrade”  the
applicant’s PRF rating from a “Promote” to a  “Definitely  Promote.”
Therefore, the applicant’s request to substitute a  “reaccomplished”
PRF is denied.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

    a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 11 April  1999  through  10  April  2000,  be
declared void and removed from his records.

    b.  The attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF  Form
707A rendered for the period 11 April 1999  through  10  April  2000,
which was signed by the additional rater on 1 July 2000, be placed in
his officer selection folder in its proper sequence.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special  Selection  Boards  for  the
Calendar Years 2001B, 2002B  and  2003A  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01843  in  Executive  Session  on  30  October  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member
                Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 03.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPE, dated 20 Aug 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Aug 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Aug 03.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 30 Sep 03.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant's Response, dated 20 Oct 03, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-01843
INDEX CODE:  111.00, 131.00




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:

             a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 11 April 1999 through 10 April 2000, be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

              b.  The attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report,
AF Form 707A rendered for the period 11 April 1999 through 10 April
2000, which was signed by the additional rater on 1 July 2000, be, and
hereby is, placed in his officer selection folder in its proper
sequence.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Boards for the
Calendar Years 2001B, 2002B and 2003A Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Boards.









       JOE G. LINEBERGER

       Director

       Air Force Review Boards Agency