RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04042
            INDEX CODE:  110.03, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Gary R. Myers

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  Calendar  Year
1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be amended.

2.  He be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A selection board.

3.  Upon  his  selection  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel,   he   be
reinstated to active duty with back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPR rendered after he PCS'd from Belgium closed out on 7 Jun  98.   From
July 1998 through December 1998, he was in school.  He arrived  at  his  new
duty station in January 1999.  His senior rater  who  was  ignorant  of  his
accomplishments and  future  prospects  from  July  98  through  March  1999
prepared his PRF for the March 1999 selection board.   The  PRF  reflects  a
lack of knowledge and the last  line  of  Part  IV  reflects  no  meaningful
promotion push.  After notification of his nonselection  for  promotion,  he
consulted AFPC and realized that the PRF was  the  probable  basis  for  his
nonselection.  He sought relief from the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB).  In support of his ERAB  appeal  he  provided  statements  from  the
senior rater in support of amending the PRF.   Basically  the  senior  rater
did not know of his accomplishments from the time of his PCS to the time  of
his promotion board.  The ERAB granted  partial  relief,  which  marginally,
but not substantially changed the PRF.  The ERAB utilized  the  "retroactive
thinking" doctrine in denying full relief.  In this case, the  senior  rater
did not know the facts, this is not retroactive thinking.   He  met  an  SSB
and was not selected and as a result of his nonselection he  was  separated.


In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  his  counsel's  brief  and
documentation associated with his ERAB  appeal.   His  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  19
Nov 82 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty  on  19  Feb  83.
He was progressively promoted to the grade of  major,  having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 6 Feb 95.

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99) CY99B (30  Nov  99),  CY00A  (28  Nov  00),
CY01B (5 Nov 01), and the CY02B  (12  Nov  02)  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Boards.

Based on a correction to his PRF, he was considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion by SSB on 6 May 02 for the CY99A selection board.

On 28 Mar 00, applicant  accepted  selective  continuation  on  active  duty
until his 24th year of active military service.  On  28  Feb  03,  applicant
voluntarily retired for length of service.  He served 20 years and  12  days
on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE states only cases that remove  negative
information from a member's record or add positive  information,  which  was
not previously known can be  made  in  accordance  with  AFI  36-2401.   The
information added to the new PRF was already known to the senior rater  with
the exception of the  1998  Force  Command's  Operations  Excellence  Award,
which was approved to add to the PRF.  Regarding his contention that he  was
in school from  July  1998  through  December  1998  and  his  PRF  gave  no
meaningful push, DPPPE states many officers  are  in  the  same  or  similar
situations; yet, that does not mean the  senior  rater  does  not  have  the
level of expertise to adequately assess the officers career  and  render  an
appropriate PRF.  He was provided a copy of the PRF 30  days  prior  to  the
selection board.  Had he noticed a problem with key information  missing  he
should have addressed the issue at the time.  Obviously he did  not  have  a
problem with the PRF until he was nonselected for promotion.   Additionally,
he was  willing  to  let  the  corrected  PRFs  stand  until  he  was  again
nonselected for promotion.  He  should  not  have  waited  until  after  his
nonselection  to  address  the  fact  that   he   was   not   given   proper
stratification  and   accomplishments   were   not   added   to   the   PRF.
Stratification statements are not mandatory.   As  well,  the  senior  rater
should not have waited until the June 1999 OPR to determine he did not  have
all the information for his PRF.  The board convened in March 1999  and  the
last OPR on file closed out in June 1998.  At that  time  the  senior  rater
chose to write the PRF to the best of his knowledge and  appropriately  rank
him against other majors.  To look  back  two  years  later  and  say  after
reviewing all information he now ranks the applicant "#3 of  57  majors"  is
nothing more than a retrospective view.  The DPPPE evaluation is at  Exhibit
C.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed the DPPPE advisory  and  states  that  since  denial  is
recommended, SSB consideration is not warranted.  The  DPPPO  evaluation  is
at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that  in  addition  to  not  knowing  about  the  1998  Force
Command's Operations Excellence Award, the senior rater was also unaware  of
the  applicant's  correct  duty  title  and  responsibilities  that  he  was
performing.  He was selectively chosen for the position he was  holding  and
the senior  rater  was  unaware  of  the  records  review  process  and  his
selection for the position by his senior staff.  The duty title on  the  PRF
is a line crewmember position and is not a key staff position in  the  unit.
With   incorrect   information   about   his   job   position   or    career
accomplishments, the senior rater could not  make  an  accurate  assessment.
After the  senior  rater  learned  of  his  true  position  he  changed  the
stratification rating and  promotion  comments.   The  applicant  noticed  a
problem with the PRF after he was provided a copy.  He  immediately  advised
his chain of command the duty  title/description  was  incorrect  and  other
information was missing.  He was told that wherever  you  are  working  when
the PRF is drafted, is the duty title used and it did  not  matter  that  he
would be doing another job in the unit prior  to  the  selection  board  and
refused to change the PRF.  He was told by AFPC after his nonselection  that
he could have used his most current duty title prior to the  board  meeting.
The senior rater was given inaccurate and incomplete information  about  his
career to rank him against other majors in the unit.  There are only  a  few
key positions for a major  to  fill.   The  position  that  he  held  was  a
critical position in supporting the modernization of the  entire  NATO  E-3A
fleet.  There were already proven errors in the PRF because  change  to  the
duty title and the addition of the  Force  Command's  Operations  Excellence
Award were approved.  There were also material  errors  in  the  process  by
which the PRF was  crafted.   Complete  and  accurate  information  was  not
provided to the senior rater and the regulations  were  wrongly  interpreted
and changes were refused.  The senior rater has admitted  that  errors  were
made in preparing his PRF.  Stratification statements may not be  mandatory;
however promotion boards have shown they can be critical in determining  who
gets promoted.  His complete submission is 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case.  However, we  do  not
believe that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.   We  are  not
persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided  that  there  were  any   errors   or
improprieties in his promotion  recommendation  process,  other  than  those
previously corrected by the ERAB.  Further we do not believe  that  his  PRF
was prepared in a manner differently than  similarly  situated  officers  or
that he was denied the opportunity to compete for promotion on  a  fair  and
equitable basis.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations
of the Air Force office 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.  In the absence  of  persuasive  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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
04042 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 04, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 12 May 04.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair