RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00821
                                (Case 2)

            INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),  rendered  for  the   period
11 September 2000 through 10 September  2001,  be  replaced  with  the
revised OPR  he  provided,  reflecting  the  words  “squadron  command
equivalent” in Section III, Block 2.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B  (5 November
2001) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, with  the  corrected
OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His duty status was not accurately seen by the CY01B  selection  board
as being a squadron commander equivalent, since Section I, Block 8, of
the contested  OPR  identified  his  duty  status  as  only  a  flight
commander.  He believes  the  misinterpretation  of  his  duty  status
resulted in his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

In support of his request, applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
copies of the contested and revised OPRs, statements from  his  rating
chain and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
6 December 1985.  He is currently serving on active duty in the  grade
of major, with an effective date and date of rank of 1  January  1998.
The following is a  resume  of  his  OPR  ratings  subsequent  to  his
promotion to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               30 Jun 98     Meets Standards (MS)
               28 Feb 99          MS
               28 Feb 00          MS
               10 Sep 00          MS
            #* 10 Sep 01          MS
            ##  6 Aug 02          MS
            ### 8 Apr 03          MS
                8 Apr 04          MS

*  Contested OPR

# Top report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY01B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Board, which convened on 5 November 2001.

## Top report at the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY02B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Board, which convened on 12 November 2002.

### Top report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY03A  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Board, which convened on 8 July 2003.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force  Instruction  (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 27 October 2003.

In 2003, applicant applied to the Air Force Board  for  Correction  of
Military  Records  (AFBCMR)   for   replacement   of   his   Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY01B  (P0501B)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board with a revised PRF and Special Selection Board
(SSB) consideration.  His application  was  denied  by  the  Board  on
9 July 2003.

Information maintained in the Military Personnel Data System  (MilPDS)
reveals that the  applicant  currently  has  an  established  date  of
separation of 31 December 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE, recommends the application  be  denied.   DPPPE  states
that the contested OPR clearly identifies the  applicant’s  duties  as
being equivalent to those of any squadron  commander.   His  Duty  Air
Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of C65F3 clearly has  the  “C”  commander
prefix and his duty  title  clearly  states  “commander.”   The  first
bullet in Section VI clearly  refers  to  the  applicant  as  a  “unit
commander.”  In  the  evaluators  overall  assessments,  they  clearly
suggest that the applicant was serving as a commander at that time and
upon completion of his current tour,  he  should  be  selected  for  a
larger command position.  The Air Force views  evaluation  reports  as
most accurate when written and become a matter of record.   There  are
no errors or injustices cited in  the  contested  OPR.   Retrospective
views  of  evaluators,  based  on  nonselect  counseling,   does   not
constitute an avenue for rewriting and reconsideration of the member’s
performance records.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  reviewed  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE’s  advisory   regarding   the
applicant’s request to substitute his 10 September 2001 OPR  and  have
nothing  further  to  add.   Since   DPPPE   recommend   denial,   SSB
consideration is not warranted.  The HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  evaluation,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
circumstances,  which  triggered  discovery  of  the  error,  do   not
invalidate  the  fact  that  an  error  actually  occurred   requiring
correction of the contested OPR.   HQ  AFPC/DPPPE  restated  the  ERAB
decision in their  advisory  opinion.   The  ERAB  decision,  although
clearly reaching an unfavorable  conclusion,  supports  his  position.
The only method a promotion board could take to determine his position
was equivalent to a squadron commander  would  be  to  know  that  the
duties are commensurate with those of a squadron commander.  During  a
promotion board, with just minutes  to  review  a  record,  the  board
member is likely to simply draw the conclusion  that  his  status  was
flight commander without stopping to equate the duties to  that  of  a
squadron commander.  The simple addition of the words squadron command
equivalent   would   significantly   reduce    the    likelihood    of
misinterpretation and increase the ability of the board to  score  the
record more fairly/equally.  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE  made  its  most  flagrant
error when they referred to  a  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)
containing a statement that he  was  selected  as  “USAFE  Comptroller
Squadron Commander of the year for 2001….”  The USAFE award,  although
earned, was not announced in time to be included in  the  PRF  or  the
OPR.  The PRF from the P0501B selection board  was  not  part  of  his
application package, is not part of the official personnel record, and
does not seem relevant to this issue.  The intent  of  the  rater  and
senior rater, at the time the report was written, was to  reflect  his
duty status as squadron commander.  This request before the AFBCMR  is
not to alter their view based  on  a  retrospective  opinion,  but  to
clarify  duty  status  that  was  inadvertently/unintentionally   left
unclear  and  open  to  unjust  misinterpretation.   The   applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, 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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s   submission,   including   the
statements from the rating chain, the Board  majority  is  unpersuaded
that the contested report should be altered.   In  this  respect,  the
Board majority noted the  new  policy  redesignating  the  comptroller
flight in question to a “squadron”  was  approved  subsequent  to  the
contested report becoming a matter of record.  Inasmuch as  the  other
12 remaining comptroller flight units were redesignated to comptroller
squadrons during this same time period, the Board  majority  finds  no
evidence showing the applicant was inequitably treated  in  comparison
to similarly situated  officers.   Additionally,  the  Board  majority
views the statements by the rating chain, so long after  the  closeout
of the report, as retrospective assessments, written  as  well-meaning
after-the-fact attempts  to  enhance  the  applicant’s  promotability.
Such motivations are not  sufficient  to  support  findings  that  the
reports themselves are erroneous or unjust.  In view of the above, and
in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a determination  that
the applicant’s record before the duly constituted selection board was
unable to make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability
in relation to his peers, the Board majority finds no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
                  Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

By a majority  vote,  Ms.  Erickson  and  Ms.  Hassan  voted  to  deny
applicant's request.   Mr.  Parker  voted  to  grant  the  applicant's
request but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2004-00821.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Apr 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letters from Applicant, dated 9 Jun 04, w/atchs.




                                   EDWARD H. PARKER
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2004-00821




MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                                         JOE G.
LINEBERGER
                                                         Director
                                                         Air Force
Review Boards Agency