RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03654
                       INDEX CODE:  111.00 & 131.00
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Air Force (AF) Form 709, Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)
that met the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
Selection Board (CSB), be replaced with a reaccomplished report.

2.   He  receive  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  for
promotion to grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY00A  Lieutenant
Colonel CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original PRF omitted in Section IV his  selection  to  cross  flow
from an airlift to tanker major weapons system (MWS).   This  critical
information would have significantly  increased  his  probability  for
promotion.  This information was on  his  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) for the period ending 28 September 2000,  which  met  the  CY00A
selection board.  He believes the  critical  information  was  missing
from his PRF because it was not processed within the PRF timeline.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

The applicant submitted  an  application  to  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).  The ERAB denied the applicant’s requests.

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.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                         1 Jan 98            Meets Standards
                         1 Jan 99            Meets Standards
                         1 Jan 00            Meets Standards
                       *28 Sep 00            Meets Standards
                      **15 May 01            Meets Standards
                     ***15 May 02            Meets Standards
                     ****8 Apr 03            Meets Standards

     * Top report at time of CY00A Lt Col Bd
    ** Top report at time of CY01B Lt Col Bd
   *** Top report at time of CY02B Lt Col Bd
  **** Top report at time of CY03A Lt Col Bd

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states for the senior rater to change Section IV of  the
PRF, he would have to demonstrate there was a material  error  in  the
PRF;  or  a  material  error  in  the  record  of  performance   which
substantially impacted the content of the PRF; or a material error  in
the process by which the PRF was crafted.  In  the  applicant’s  case,
these requirements have not been met.

The PRF is considered a working copy  until  the  start  of  the  CSB.
Senior raters have the flexibility to change PRFs before they become a
matter of record.  The applicant stated he informed his  senior  rater
of the missing information on his  PRF.   His  senior  rater  had  the
opportunity to change the PRF and elected not  to  make  any  changes.
The senior rater has the sole responsibility of what items to  include
on the PRF.   The  applicant’s  senior  rater  has  not  provided  any
documentation or information explaining why he did not make changes to
the PRF prior to the convening of the board.  If the  applicant  still
believed this was critical information  for  the  promotion  board  to
review, he could have written a letter to the board to inform them  of
his cross flow.

The applicant made changes to the unit mission  description  and  Duty
Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) without any supportive  documentation
from his  senior  rater  and  management  level  review  president  as
required.  These changes were included in  the  applicant’s  ERAB  but
were  not  addressed  for  the   applicant   to   provide   supporting
documentation for these changes.

Based on the  information  provided  DPPPE  recommends  the  requested
relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

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

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
6 February 2004, for  review  and  response.   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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission,  the  Board  agrees
with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air  Force  and  adopts
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Although the  applicant
provided a reaccomplished PRF and supporting letters from  his  senior
rater  and  the  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)   president,   these
individuals do not provide persuasive evidence why  the  senior  rater
did not make changes to the contested report prior to convening of the
board.  In this respect, we note the applicant stated he informed  his
senior rater of the missing information prior to the convening of  the
board and his senior rater apparently chose not to change  the  report
prior to the  board,  as  was  his  right  to  do.   Furthermore,  the
applicant had the opportunity to write the promotion  board  informing
them of missing information in his PRF, but chose not to  do  so.   In
addition, we note changes to the DAFSC and unit  mission  description;
however, no evidence has been  presented  explaining  the  reason  for
these changes.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel
will materially add to our understanding  of  the  issue(s)  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03654 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Jan 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Jan 04
      Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                             Panel Chair