RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03138

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports  (OPR)  closing  out    30
September 1998, 30 September 1999, 30 September 2000 and      31  July
2001 be removed and replaced with reaccomplished reports covering  the
same  periods  and  consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade   of
lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for  the  Calendar
Years 2001B (CY01B),  2002B  (CY02B),  and  2003A  (CY03A)  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During her records review with AFPC and AFMC personnelists  after  her
in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) Lt Col board, the primary areas that  were
highlighted as  being  “lacking”  in  her  records  were  job  pushes,
enthusiasm, and distinction/stratification.  Overall, they stated that
her records needed more job pushes,  correct  PME  recommendations,  a
command  or  SPO  director  push  and  stratification   among   peers,
specifically in her top four OPRs (98-01).

Armed with this information, she approached two of the raters’ on  her
last four OPRs and asked them to review their inputs.   They  did  and
both of them agreed that the OPRs they  had  written  lacked  some  of
these items and may have sent a negative message to the  board,  which
they did not intend to do.  Therefore, each rater reaccomplished their
OPRs.

In September 2002, she submitted  an  application  to  the  Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to substitute her current OPRs closing out
30 September 1998 and 30  September  1990  for  corrected  OPRs.   The
corrected OPRs added job pushes,  stratification,  and  corrected  PME
recommendations.  The ERAB denied her request stating that “While job,
PME, and command recommendations,  as  well  as  stratifications,  are
encouraged, they are not mandatory comments.  Therefore, the  lack  of
these recommendations does not cause the report  to  be  erroneous  or
unjust.”  She found this confusing given the information advertised to
officers.

She understands that today’s promotion environment is extremely tough.
 With more quality people than available promotions, some good  people
will not be promoted.  However,  her  performance  to  date  has  been
nothing but outstanding as voiced  by  her  raters/additional  raters.
According to AFPC and AFMC promotion counselors, the current OPRs  may
have left a perception that a negative message was being  sent.   That
was not the case  as  demonstrated  by  the  disadvantage  during  the
central selection board and subsequent APZ boards.  All  she  asks  is
that she be given a fair opportunity, which she believes  she,  earned
to compete equally with her  peers  with  OPRs  that  state  her  true
potential.

For Air Force members like her, the message  is  clear…the  statements
need to be in her OPRs and/PRFs if promotion is desired.   Her  raters
and additional raters believe this also and  have  reaccomplished  her
OPRs due to her outstanding job performance and potential.  Due to the
above reasons, she is requesting review of her request to  change  her
OPRs and reconsideration by Special Selection Board  in  her  IPZ  and
subsequent above-the-zone (APZ) boards.

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 with a date of rank of 1 March 1998.

The applicant has three nonselections for promotion to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY01A, CY02B and  CY03A  central  lieutenant
colonel selection boards.

On 17 April 2001, the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAM)  approved
the applicant’s appeal to remove the OPR closing out 30 September 2000
and replacing it with a corrected report.

On 11 September 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal regarding  the
30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999 OPRs to the Evaluation  Report
Appeals Board (ERAB) stating the rater’s inexperience resulted  in  an
omitted job recommendation and contained an incorrect  PME  push.  Her
request was reviewed by the ERAB and determined while  job,  PME,  and
command recommendations, as well as stratifications,  are  encouraged,
they are  not  mandatory  comments.   Therefore,  the  lack  of  these
recommendations does not cause the report to be erroneous  or  unjust.
Additionally, the ERAB noted that since the applicant did not complete
ACSC in-residence, she was still eligible for an ISS recommendation in
the 30 September 1999 OPR.  Her last board  to  be  selected  for  in-
residence attendance was after the report’s closeout date;  therefore,
the OPR contained  the  correct  recommendation.   The  ERAB  was  not
convinced by the applicant's documentation provided to the board.


OER/OPR profile since 1992, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       01 May 97  Meets Standards
                       28 Feb 98  Meets Standards
                 *     30 Sep 98  Meets Standards
                 *     30 Sep 99  Meets Standards
                 *     30 Sep 00  Meets Standards
                 *     31 Jul 01  Meets Standards
                       30 Jul 02  Meets Standards
                       27 Feb 03  Meets Standards

* Contested reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommended  denial  and  stated  that  the  evidence   is
primarily opinionated and the rating chain does  not  provide  reasons
why they support the changes four years later other  than  wanting  to
get the applicant promoted.  To allow the applicant to embellish  four
years of performance goes against the integrity and fairness of the AF
officer evaluation system and promotion  process.   If  she  perceived
those reports to be in error, she should have initiated  action  prior
to the Central Selection Board, as  indicated  in  the  DoD  Directive
1320.11, paragraph 4.3.

Applicant  is  simply  trying  to  strengthen  her  records  based  on
nonselection counseling.  The member  refers  to  AFPC  guidance  that
provides information for officers guiding them as to  what  is  needed
for a strong promotion potential report.  However,  this  is  provided
for assistance in writing reports “prior”  to  the  Central  Selection
Board.  While the applicant contends guidance from the AFPC  web  site
and ERAB’s decision is contradictory,  they  strongly  disagree.   The
guidance is accurate in that stratification, PME, and  command  pushes
send a strong message to the promotion  boards.   The  ERAB  was  also
accurate, however, in stating these recommendations “are not mandatory
comments.  Therefore, the lack of recommendations does not  cause  the
report to be erroneous or unjust.”  If all nonselection  were  allowed
to strengthen their report after the board had convened  because  they
were told which areas were weak, then the integrity of  the  promotion
system would be lost, and all members would be granted a second chance
at promotion.

The applicant states that her 1998 to 2001  reports  were  lacking  in
several areas that are required for a member  to  get  promoted.   The
applicant provided an outline detailing, in her opinion, what  reports
were weak or missing  stratification  and  command  pushes.   However,
every Air Force member who is nonselected for promotion  could  easily
find something that would make their record stronger.   The  applicant
received nonselection counseling (a  service  provided  by  AFPC)  and
bases  her  “after  the  fact”  argument  on  that  counseling.    The
counseling, however, does not provide a “black and white” answer as to
why a person was not selected, but rather a general comparison of that
member’s record against selectees--it does not provide a forum to  re-
write history, nor entitle a second look at promotion.

AFPC/DPPPE complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the DPPPE  advisory  and  have
nothing further to add.  They  believe  that  since  DPPPE  recommends
disapproval, an SSB consideration is not warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 15 November 2003, for review and comment within 30  days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   After  thoroughly  reviewing
the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we  are
not persuaded the applicant should be provided the  requested  relief.
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in  judging  the
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  comments   and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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, the Board finds
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  that  the  contested  reports  be
reaccomplished.

_________________________________________________________________




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-
03138 in Executive Session on 8 January 2004, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Oct 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 31 Oct 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Nov 03.






      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Chair