RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03546
            INDEX CODE:  112.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  29
August 1992 through 28 August 1993, be  declared  void  and  replaced
with a reaccomplished OPR.

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration
by the CY02B Lieutenant  Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB)  be
removed from his records and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel
by Special Selection Boards for the Calendar Year 2002 (CY02B) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Extremely  pertinent  information  regarding   the   impact   of   his
accomplishments was inadvertently omitted from the contested  OPR  and
PRF.  Information provided by the rater,  reviewer  and  senior  rater
bear this fact out.  The original record erroneously produced a  false
impression that he had regressed as a professional officer.   His  new
squadron commander advised him at the time that one poorly written OPR
would  never  become  a  factor  for  promotion.   After  nonselection
counseling with both AFPC and his Wing commander it  became  glaringly
apparent that this inaccurate OPR had  demonstrated  some  backsliding
and lowered his ranking within the wing.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a reaccomplished  OPR  and
PRF,  supportive  statements  from  the  rater  and  reviewer  of  the
contested OPR and from the senior rater of his 2002 PRF, and an e-mail
from the Professor of Aerospace Studies recounting the 1992 counseling
session.   Applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,   is
attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major.

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

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states that  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2401,  paragraph
A1.5.1, a report is not erroneous  or  unfair  because  the  applicant
believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may  impact
future  promotion  career  opportunities.   A  simple  willingness  by
evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid  basis
for doing so.  It must be proven the report  is  erroneous  or  unjust
based on its content.

Also, a PRF is considered accurate when it becomes a matter of record.
  Approximately  100  days  prior  to  the  CSB,  officers  are  given
instructions that include the  requirement  to  quality  review  their
records in order to ensure accuracy prior to the  CSB.   There  is  no
evidence that the applicant  and/or  the  senior  rater  attempted  to
correct these perceived inaccuracies prior to the  CSB  nor  does  the
applicant provide the required MLR President’s  support  of  the  PRF.
IAW DOD Directive 1320.11, paragraph 4.3, “A Special  Selection  Board
shall not, under Section 628(b) or 14502(b) of reference (b), consider
any officer who might, by maintaining reasonably careful records, have
discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on  which
the original board based its decision against promotion.”

In summary, the Air Force views evaluation reports  as  most  accurate
when written and it becomes a matter of  record.   Given  the  limited
space  to  provide  a  written  assessment  on   evaluation   reports,
evaluators    must    make    a    conscious    decision    on    what
accomplishments/statements to include on the report.  An omission does
not constitute an error.  There are no errors or injustices  cited  in
the OPR or PRF.  Retrospective views  of  evaluators  months  or  even
years after an evaluation, based on non-select  counseling,  does  not
constitute  an  avenue  for  rewriting  and  reconsideration  of   the
applicant’s performance records.  Therefore, they recommend denial  of
the applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that the request for  substitution  of  the  PRF  is
timely but that the request pertaining to the OPR is untimely.   Based
on the  assessment  of  the  contested  reports  by  DPPPE  and  their
recommendation that the applicant’s requests concerning the reports be
denied, DPPPO recommends denial of SSB consideration.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he is not trying to rewrite/recreate history  as
AFPC/DPPPE implies, or cheat his way into  a  second  opportunity  for
promotion.  He is simply seeking redress for a mistake that  prevented
him a fair and equal opportunity to compete for that promotion.

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 portion of the application pertaining to the  PRF  was  timely
filed.  The portion of the application pertaining to the OPR  was  not
timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse  the
failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records are in error
or that he has been the victim of an injustice.  The OPR and PRF  were
not reaccomplished to correct errors, but to correct  deficiencies  in
style, e.g., bullets were  rewritten  to  eliminate  white  space  and
higher-impact words were chosen.  The Air Force evaluation notes  that
“A simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade,  rewrite,  or  void  a
report is not a valid  basis  for  doing  so.”   The  report  must  be
erroneous or unjust based on its content, and that is clearly not  the
case  here.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  noted;  however,  in  our
opinion, the detailed comments provided by the appropriate  Air  Force
offices adequately address those allegations and their assessment  has
not been adequately rebutted by the applicant.   Therefore,  we  agree
with opinions and recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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  this  application,  BC-
2003-03546,  in  Executive  Session  on  25  March  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member
                       Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 29 Dec 03.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Jan 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
      Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Feb 04.




                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                             Panel Chair