RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00606
            INDEX NUMBER: 131.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Material errors  contained  on  his  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF),
prepared for the P0503A Central Selection Board,  be  corrected;  the  final
line of Block IV, be changed to reflect “- Personifies leadership! Number  7
of 90 brilliant EOs--make him a Lt Col now! MSS/CC  then  joint  SSS!”;  his
record, to include the proposed PRF he has  provided,  be  compared  against
the two records  the  senior  rater  awarded  a  “Definitely  Promote  (DP)”
recommendation, and if his record is determined to be stronger, the  overall
recommendation of the PRF be upgraded to a DP;  and  he  be  considered  for
promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the P0503A board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested PRF contains four material errors,  i.e.,  an  incorrect  Unit
Mission Description (UMD) in Block II, the wrong job  description  in  Block
III, and  punctuation  errors  in  Block  IV.   Collectively,  these  errors
undermine the integrity of the entire PRF, potentially causing  the  Central
Selection Board (CSB) to question all achievements  mentioned  in  the  PRF.
In addition, a significant accomplishment was not highlighted in the  PRF  -
the significance of his duties  during  his  1992  six-month  deployment  in
support of  Operation  PROVIDE  COMFORT.   The  failure  to  highlight  this
significant accomplishment unjustly hurt his  chances  for  promotion.   The
closing comment on the PRF was inappropriately weak.   Further,  his  senior
rater did not afford  him  a  fair  evaluation  during  the  DP  preparation
process and the overall evaluation should be changed to a DP.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his Officer  Selection
Record (OSR), a reaccomplished PRF, and  statements from  the  senior  rater
of the contested PRF and the Management Level Review (MLR) President.



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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

He  was  considered  in-the-promotion-zone  (IPZ)  and  not   selected   for
promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  P0503A  Central
Selection Board.  The  PRF  prepared  for  the  P0503A  board  contained  an
overall recommendation of promote.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  the
errors applicant references are minor  in  nature  and  do  not  change  the
promotability of the record.  Further, the CSB  had  his  entire  record  to
review.  There are no documented errors in Sections IV and  IX  on  the  PRF
requiring correction.  Applicant failed  to  provide  any  justification  to
support the changes nor did he exercise due  diligence  prior  to  the  CSB.
Correction of a PRF requires the concurrence of the  senior  rater  and  MLR
President.  Although the senior rater supports some changes  to  Section  IV
of the PRF, he does not support upgrading the overall recommendation to  DP.
 The MLR President did not support any change.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The MLR President did not  review  the  same  information  provided  in  his
AFBCMR appeal, but rather only that  presented  by  the  senior  rater  that
begged to be disapproved.  The PRF is the most important  document  the  CSB
has access to and should reflect an accurate assessment of  his  performance
and promotion potential.  Since the MLR President disapproved  his  request,
he did not apply to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The  senior
rater has admitted in writing there were things in the  record  he  did  not
understand when preparing the PRF.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________




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 applicant’s submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  In this regard,  we  note  the  senior  rater  initially
supported the applicant’s appeal, however, he later  advised  the  applicant
the PRF was not in error.  Additionally, we note the MLR President does  not
support applicant’s request.  In  view  of  this,  and  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale  expressed  as  the  basis
for our decision that applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  that  he
has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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  Docket  Number  BC-2004-00606
in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member







The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03 (sic), w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 May 04.

    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Aug 04.



                                   RITA S. LOONEY
                                   Panel Chair