RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02295
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) that met the CY00A  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board  be  replaced  with  a  reaccomplished
report; and he be considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar  Year  2000A
Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection  Board,  which  convened  on  28
November 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He feels that the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) may not  have
fully considered the evidence provided and  made  a  false  assumption
without verifying it with his rating chain of command.

Due to the timing of his annual OPR cycle, his  OPR  dated  8 December
2000, closed out while the CY00A Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board
(28 November - 13 December 2000) was  in  session  and  was  therefore
considered inadmissible.   At  the  time,  he  was  the  11th  Airlift
Squadron  Chief  of  Standardization  and  Evaluation  and   Assistant
Director of Operations.  By regulation he  reported  directly  to  the
commander.  His rating chain was unable to generate a CRO report prior
to the board because of his duty position and scope of responsibility.
 To move him to  a  rater  other  than  the  commander  is  in  direct
violation of AFI 11-408 and would have been totally inappropriate.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a  personal  statement,  a
copy of the ERAB Decision, the original PRF, the reaccomplished PRF, a
copy of his 8 December 2000 OPR, a letter from the MLR President and a
letter from the Senior Rater.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a rated Regular Air Force officer serving on extended
active duty in the grade of major.  He currently  has  an  established
date of separation of 31 July 2009.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A, CY01B, CY02B and CY03A  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Boards.   His  Officer  Performance  Reports
(OPRs)  from  1991  through  2002  reflect  meets  standards  on   all
performance factors.

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the request stating,
The applicant’s “Senior Rater had the opportunity while preparing  the
PRF to obtain his most recent duty performance  based  potential  from
subordinate or previous supervisors in accordance with (IAW)  AFI  36-
2406, 1 July 2000, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems,  paragraph
8.2.3.1.2.

On 20 June 2002, the Board considered and  denied  a  request  by  the
applicant that his record, including a letter to the Board  President,
be considered by an SSB for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board  (see  Exhibit
G).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states  that  the  ERAB  simply  stated  that  it  was  the
applicant’s responsibility to take advantage of the 30 days  given  to
him to review the PRF for any concerns prior to the Board.  It is  not
appropriate for him to wait until after his Central Selection Board to
raise concerns about the content of the PRF.  The applicant could  not
see his PRF until after the MLR because it is not official until  that
point.  However, he had 30 days from the point he received the PRF  to
identify problems with his senior rater.  All  officers  are  provided
specific instructions several months prior to their Central  Selection
Board.

DPPPE indicated that it is Air Force policy that an evaluation  report
is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The  issue
is whether it would be fair to allow the applicant a chance to go back
and  make  his  PRF  stronger.   The  evaluators  originally  had  the
opportunity to include all accomplishments of the  applicant  and  the
applicant received  the  PRF  in  advance  of  the  board  to  review.
Instructions are provided to all officers informing  them  to  contact
their rating chain with any concerns with  the  PRF.   As  such,  this
applicant had the same opportunities as all other officers meeting the
same promotion board.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s
request to substitute the PRF.

This evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

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

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with the AFPC/DPPPE summary.  The  summary  quotes
him out of context and fails to entirely address the case  by  leaving
out relevant information and supporting documentation addressed in his
application.

His appeal is not that the OPR  closed  out  during  the  board.   His
appeal is for the consideration of significant  events  that  had  all
occurred before the board convened that were not included in  his  PRF
and selection record.  There is no mention in his PRF of  any  of  his
duty performance the year leading to his selection board.

The summary states that the rating chain did not  make  a  mistake  in
crafting the PRF, and that there were no errors in the PRF.  He states
the senior rater, HQ AMC/DP, HQ AMC/CV and the Management Level Review
(MLR) President further validated that a gross error had occurred  and
felt strongly enough to recompete the corrected PRF at the MLR.

In addition to questioning the integrity of his rating chain  and  the
MLR President, the ERAB summary attempts to blame him, the ratee,  for
the mistakes of those appointed above him.

The void in his promotion record was the result of an admitted flaw in
the crafting process.  Those responsible for the error are officers of
integrity, and they have taken action to correct the injustice.   AFPC
feels that the PRF correction should have no impact on the outcome  of
an SSB.  His rating chain and the MLR President  see  it  differently.
This is a determination that only a promotion  board  can  make.   The
correction to his record may or  may  not  be  enough  to  impact  the
outcome of the board, but at least he will be able to finally  compete
with his peers on a level playing field with his record in  tact.   He
respectfully asks that the Board fully consider the evidence provided,
along with the direction given by the MLR President.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error  or  injustice.   In  this  respect,  we  note  the
supporting statement submitted from the senior rater on the  contested
PRF.  This officer states that,  due  to  the  timing  of  the  board,
applicant’s annual OPR closeout date, and other  factors,  several  of
the  applicant’s  significant  accomplishments   during   the   period
preceding the board were not properly  considered  and  included  when
crafting his CY00A PRF and also were not available to the board in the
form of OPR comments.  His 2000 annual OPR  was  in  coordination  and
closed out while the CY00A promotion board was in session,  making  it
inadmissible and resulting in a 354-day hole in the performance record
used for board consideration.  Regrettably, there  is  no  significant
mention in his PRF of his accomplishments while assigned to  the  11th
Airlift Squadron.  The senior rater now believes that he made an error
of omission in crafting the applicant’s PRF  and  feels  there  is  an
obligation to this officer and  the  Air  Force  to  correct  it.   He
further indicates that the circumstances highlighted in his  statement
likely created an unjust situation  for  the  applicant  in  that  the
promotion board did not have access to  crucial  information  relating
his full potential to perform in the next higher grade.   In  view  of
this statement, which is supported  by  the  Management  Level  Review
Board president, and in an effort to  remove  any  possibility  of  an
injustice to the applicant, it is our opinion that the  contested  PRF
should be declared void and replaced with the amended PRF provided  by
the senior rater.  In addition, we recommend his corrected  record  be
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for
the CY00A selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Promotion
Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A
(CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board  be  declared  void
and removed from his records  and  replaced  with  the  reaccomplished
report.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 2000A Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02295  in  Executive  Session  on  4  December  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                       Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Sep 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Sep 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant's Response, dated 3 Nov 03.
   Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 16 Jul 02, w/atchs.




                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair







AFBCMR BC-2003-02295
INDEX CODE:  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   the   Promotion
Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A
(CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby  is,
declared void and removed from  his  records  and  replaced  with  the
attached reaccomplished report.

           It is further directed that he be considered for  promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)
for the Calendar Year 2000A Central Selection Board.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment
Reaccomplished AF Form 709