RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01917
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 1 Jun 99 and 1 Jun 00  be
declared void and replaced with corrected reports.

2.  Her Promotion Recommendation Forms  (PRFs)  prepared  for  the  Calendar
Year 1999B (CY99B) and (CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection  Boards,
be declared void and replaced with corrected reports.

3.  Her corrected  records  be  supplementally  considered  by  supplemental
Management Level Review (MLR) boards  for  the  CY99B  and  CY00A  selection
boards.

4.  She  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel;  or  in  the
alternative, she be considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by Special  Selection  Board  for  the  CY99B  and  CY00A  selection
boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant provided two applications to the AFBCMR.   Applicant  states  that
the 1999 and 2000 OPRs and PRFs fail to contain  key  statements  considered
by promotion boards to be essential  ingredients  of  a  promotable  record.
Her rater and senior rater state that  omission  of  these  statements  were
mistakes  based  on  their  misunderstanding  of  the  importance  of   such
statements.  The result  was  that  the  selection  boards  interpreted  the
records, intended to be positive, as sending a subtle signal  that  she  was
unworthy  of  advancement.    Although   both   raters   were   aware   that
stratification and recommendations for assignment and senior service  school
were authorized, they were not aware that their absence  would  be  regarded
as a critical discriminator.  At the  time  they  were  written,  Air  Force
guidance did not  encourage  inclusion  of  service  school  and  assignment
recommendations.  It is now known to be extremely important to include  such
recommendations as stratification.

Her CY00A PRF was erroneously competed at the AFSPC  MLR.   Because  the  AF
Student  MLR  has  already  adjourned,  the  MLR  President  was  asked   to
independently determine her promotion record.  That attempt was  compromised
when the MLR President was inappropriately  informed  her  record  had  been
evaluated by another  MLR  in  error  and  that  she  received  a  "Promote"
recommendation.  In addition, she was denied an opportunity  to  review  her
Officer Preselection  Brief  prior  to  the  board  convening.   Her  record
contained errors, which made it impossible  for  the  board  to  provide  an
accurate evaluation of her record and potential.

Applicant's complete submission, which includes a personal statement  and  a
statement from her senior rater and a memorandum from the MLR President,  is
attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28  Nov  00),  CY01B  (5
Nov 01), and CY02B (12 Nov 02) lieutenant colonel selection boards.

The ERAB previously approved correction of the Group Size on her CY99B  PRF.
 On 19 May 03, she was considered and not selected by SSB for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel for the CY99B selection board.

The applicants CY00A narrative-only PRF  was  erroneously  competed  at  the
AFSPC MLR.  On 19 Aug 03, she received  supplemental  MLR  consideration  at
the AF Student  MLR  and  she  received  a  "Promote"  recommendation.   Her
education history and  duty  title  were  corrected  on  the  CY00A  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB).  She requested  correction  of  her  Duty  Air  Force
Specialty Code to reflect 51J3, rather than 92S0, but that  portion  of  her
request was denied.  She was considered  by  SSB  for  the  CY00A  selection
board and was not selected for promotion.

On 27 Nov 02, the ERAB denied her requests for substitution of the 1 Jun  99
and 1 Jul  00  OPRs,  and  the  CY99A  and  CY99B  PRFs  stating  "A  simple
willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a  report  is  not  a
valid basis for doing so.  You must prove the report is erroneous of  unjust
based on its content."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant's request  to  substitute  her
OPRs closing 1 Jun 99 and 1 Jul 00, and the CY99B PRF.  Additionally,  DPPPE
recommends denial of her request to change her DAFSC from 51J3  to  92S0  on
her CY00A OSB.  DPPPE states that the senior rater does not  give  a  reason
why he did not originally include the statements he is now including in  the
corrected report.  The applicant and her rating chain did  not  take  action
on  this  matter  until  after  she  was  nonselected  for  promotion.   The
evaluations are accurate reports that she is  attempting  to  make  stronger
based on nonselection for promotion.   The  evaluators  were  aware  of  her
performance at that time and recorded on the OPRs  what  they  considered  a
fair and accurate assessment.   Retrospective  views  do  not  overcome  the
assessments made when reports are rendered.  Allowing them to do  so  places
her at a distinct advantage over her peers.

Changes  were  made  to  the  applicant's  duty  history  for  further   SSB
consideration; however, the request to change the DAFSC during  her  student
status is not supported by the governing directive.
The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that  since  denial  is  recommended  of  her  request  to
substitute  the  OPRs  and  CY99B  PRF,  denial  is  recommended   for   SSB
consideration for the CY99B board.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR  for  the  CY00A  board
failed in that her record  alone  was  sent  to  the  MLR  for  a  promotion
recommendation.  No  benchmark  records  were  provided  to  the  board  for
comparison thus  alerting  the  supplemental  MLR  board  members  that  her
record, the only record  they  were  reviewing,  was  the  record  receiving
supplemental consideration.  Air Force instructions require  that  benchmark
records from the original boards be utilized at supplemental boards.

DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999 OPR and 2000 PRF should  not  be
permitted because the reports reflect a "fair and  accurate  assessment"  by
both her rater and senior rater of her performance at the time  the  reports
were written.   However,  this  statement  is  inaccurate  as  reflected  by
letters provided by both her rater and senior rater who readily  admit  that
bad advice was provided and mistakes were made preparing her OPR and PRF.

Despite AFPC's confirmation that her  correct  DAFSC  while  assigned  as  a
student at AFIT  was  51J3,  and  the  correct  annotation  on  her  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB)  and  the  revised  PRF,  her  DAFSC  was  incorrectly
recorded as 92S0 on the newly reaccomplished recommendation-only PRF.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP  recommends  partial  relief.   DPPP  recommends  approval  of   a
supplemental student MLR for the CY00A, MLR, using  benchmark  records  from
that MLR.  DPPP further recommends  that  a  change  to  the  DAFSC  on  the
recommendation-only   PRF   if   she   receives   a   "Definitely   Promote"
recommendation and an SSB is deserved.

DPPP states that supplemental MLRs are conducted in  a  similar  competitive
review  as  the  original  MLR.   Upon  preparation  for  the  19   Aug   03
supplemental Student MLR, records showed she was in fact the  only  eligible
in her competitive category and must be the only eligible  for  supplemental
consideration.  It  has  since  been  determined,  however,  that  benchmark
records for the CY00A AF Student MLR do exist.

The applicant did not provide compelling or new substantial evidence in  her
13 Oct 03 response to the BCMR, which  would  warrant  substitution  of  her
1999  and  2000  OPRs.   The  proposed  changes  do  not   remove   negative
information or  add  positive  information.   The  proposed  reports  simply
reword   the   rater   and   additional   rater   comments   for   promotion
recommendation.  A simple willingness by  evaluators  or  non-selection  for
promotion are not valid reasons to reaccomplish performance reports.

The recommendation-only  PRF  did  in  fact  reflect  the  incorrect  DAFSC.
However, it was not reviewed  by  the  supplemental  MLR  members  when  her
record  was  reviewed  to  determine  DP  quality.   She  was  granted   SSB
consideration for the CY00A board and was nonselected.  It is  unlikely  the
DAFSC, although in error, would have been a  single  cause.   If  the  Board
directs DAFSC change to her recommendation-only PRF, there is no  cause  for
SSB consideration based solely on a DAFSC change to her PRF.

Regarding  her  request  for  direct  promotion,  DPPP  states  she  may  be
qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a selection board, she  may
not be the best qualified of those  available  for  the  limited  number  of
vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence she would have been a selectee by  the
CY00A board, an SSB is  in  the  most  advantageous  position  to  render  a
determination.

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

For DPPP to suggest that the 11 Jul  03  letter  contained  only  procedural
information  which  was  not  specifically  applicable  to   her   case   is
ridiculous.  The 11 Jul 03 letter clearly stated the procedures were  to  be
followed in her  case.   In  fact,  there  were  no  references  to  generic
protocol.  Each and every paragraph is specific to her case.   Additionally,
the letter clearly states  that  at  least  one  benchmark  record  will  be
utilized  and  her  anonymity  protected  and  the  19  Aug  03  MLR.   DPPP
acknowledges that this is the third time  her  record  has  received  unfair
promotion consideration of  the  CY00a  AF  Student  MLR.   Her  record  was
erroneously considered at the AFSPC MLR rather than  the  Student  MLR,  the
Student MLR President was given specific circumstantial information, and  it
was not properly considered at the Student MLR with benchmark records.

DPPP provides no rationale for recommending denial of substitution  of  both
OPRs and the 1999 PRF  and  contrary  to  their  recommendation,  recommends
substitution of the 2000 PRF.  Contrary to DPPPs contention, the ERAB  never
returned her request without action nor has she ever submitted a request  to
the ERAB without all four corrected records attached and combined  with  the
explanatory letters from both her rater and senior rater.   Their  assertion
that the corrected OPRs do not add positive information  and  simply  reword
the comments for promotion recommendation is  also  inaccurate.   Her  rater
readily admits he made a mistake in not including senior service school  and
assignment recommendation in her 2000 OPR and acknowledges he  provided  bad
advice to the senior rater.  The senior  rater  also  admits  he  failed  to
include job related accomplishments as well as stratification.

DPPP admits her Recommendation-Only PRF did in fact  reflect  the  incorrect
DAFSC and recommend that change.  However, despite  the  fact  that  it  was
recorded improperly no  mention  was  made  that  this  error  was  made  in
conjunction with the failure to follow  standard  procedure  in  identifying
and utilizing benchmark records to protect her anonymity.

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice that would warrant some  corrective  action.
In this respect, the applicant was competed erroneously  by  the  Air  Force
Space Command MLR for the CY00A lieutenant colonel  selection  board  for  a
promotion   recommendation.    She   subsequently   received    supplemental
consideration by  the  Air  Force  Student  MLR  and  received  a  "promote"
recommendation.  However,  improper  procedures  were  followed  during  the
supplemental MLR review of her records.  It appears that the  MLR  President
was  inappropriately  provided  information  regarding  her  previous   MLR.
Accordingly, her record was again considered by supplemental MLR.   However,
it now appears that her record  was  not  considered  along  with  benchmark
records as required by policy and  as  a  result,  the  panel  members  were
inappropriately aware that her record was being  supplementally  considered.
We believe that the applicant was improperly disadvantaged  because  of  the
numerous errors and improper handling of  the  supplemental  MLR  processes.
Further,  we  believe  that  in  order  to  resolve  any  injustice  to  the
applicant, her record should be submitted before  the  MLR  once  again  for
review  and  consideration.   If  she  receives   a   "Definitely   Promote"
recommendation, then SSB consideration would be  warranted.   We  considered
her request for direct promotion based on the fact that the  Air  Force  has
repeatedly failed to  fairly  and  correctly  consider  her  for  promotion;
however, we believe the corrective action recommended herein will allow  her
to compete for a promotion recommendation  on  an  equal  footing  with  her
peers and, in turn, compete for promotion on a fair and equitable  basis  if
deemed appropriate.  Therefore, we believe a duly appointed selection  board
is in the best position to render this determination and its prerogative  to
do so should only be usurped under  extraordinary  circumstances.   We  note
that her DAFSC was incorrectly annotated on her Recommendation-only  PRF  as
"92S0" when it should have read "51J3."  We agree with the  Air  Force  that
the error, in and by  itself,  is  not  sufficient  enough  to  warrant  SSB
consideration.    However,   if   the   supplemental   MLR   awards   a   DP
recommendation, which would lead to subsequent SSB consideration,  then  the
DAFSC can be administratively  corrected.   Accordingly,  we  recommend  her
records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Notwithstanding the  above,  insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been
presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or  injustice  warranting
voidance of the contested reports and PRF.  We note that changes  have  been
made to her 2000 PRF.  After reviewing the evidence of  record,  to  include
the  statements  submitted  from  her  rating  chain  members,  we  are  not
persuaded that the additional changes  requested  are  justified.   In  this
regard, the statements provided do not reveal that  additional  changes  are
necessary.  We have reviewed the requested changes to the contested  reports
and find, as does the Air Force, that they do not add or remove  information
that was not previously known to the evaluators but appear to be an  attempt
to embellish her record,  which  is  inappropriate.   We  believe  that  the
comments on the reports were honest assessments of  applicant’s  performance
at the time they were rendered and in the absence  of  substantive  evidence
to the contrary, we do not recommend favorable  action  on  her  request  to
have the contested OPRs and PRF replaced with reaccomplished reports.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show  that  her  record  be  considered  for  a
promotion recommendation by a Supplemental Student Management  Level  Review
(MLR) for  the  Calendar  Year  2000A  (CY00A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Student
Management Level Review;  and  that  her  records  be  assessed  against  an
appropriate number of her competitors to determine if she should  have  been
awarded a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.


 It is further recommended that if her record receives a DP  recommendation,
 she be  considered  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special
 Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
01917 in Executive Session on 24 May 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
      Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Oct 03
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 Dec 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Mar 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 04, w/atchs.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01917




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that her record be considered
for a promotion recommendation by a Supplemental Student Management Level
Review (MLR) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Student
Management Level Review; and that her records be assessed against an
appropriate number of her competitors to determine if she should have been
awarded a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.


      It is further directed that if her record receives a DP
recommendation, she be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board.






                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency