RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03306
            INDEX CODE 131.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  Calendar  Year  2002B
(CY02B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB)  be  declared  void  and
replaced with the reaccomplished  PRF  provided  and  he  be  afforded
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the CY02B Colonel CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection to colonel was a direct result of  one  omission  and
three errors on his PRF.   The  most  detrimental  of  these  was  the
exclusion of his performance  as  a  commander,  which  resulted  from
erroneous guidance  from  his  senior  rater’s  staff.   The  guidance
inappropriately   stated   all   PRF   bullets   required   supporting
documentation, such  as  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs),  award
citations, etc.  This guidance violated the  intent  of  AFI  36-2406,
para. 8.1.4.1, which does not require supporting documentation for all
bullets and in fact calls for the “subordinate supervisors to  provide
information on an officer’s most recent duty performance.”  The senior
rater has since corrected this guidance but, at the time his  PRF  was
developed, it kept his rater  from  conveying  the  magnitude  of  his
accomplishments to the senior rater.  Having only been on station  120
days when  his  PRF  was  written,  this  inappropriate  guidance  was
critical to his senior rater, who did not have intimate  knowledge  of
his  most  recent  and  critical   accomplishments.    Following   his
nonselection, his senior  rater  became  aware  of  the  inappropriate
guidance, changed the PRF with the approval of  the  Management  Level
Review Board (MLRB) president, and recommended SSB consideration.   He
identifies further errors in the first, fifth, and last lines  of  the
PRF.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.  The submission includes  a  reaccomplished  PRF  with  an  overall
recommendation of “Promote” and supporting statements from the  rater,
the senior rater, and the MLRB president.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 98.

He was assigned as  commander  of  the  72nd  Communications  Squadron
(72CS) at Tinker AFB, OK, on 15 Jul 02.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by the CY02B, which convened on 3 Dec  02.   The  PRF
had an overall recommendation of “Promote” and reflected a duty  title
of commander of the 72CS.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflected
his assignment as the 72CS commander effective 15  Jul  02.   The  top
Officer Performance Report (OPR) closed 26 Apr 02, and reflected his 5
Jul 01 title of Chief, Resources Division at Hickham AFB, HI.

On 12  May  03,  the  applicant  filed  a  similar  appeal  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2401.  However,  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) denied his appeal on 5 Sep 03.  The board noted  the  top
line of the PRF identified the applicant as an outstanding leader as a
squadron commander, and that he had not provided evidence he attempted
to discuss the alleged errors with his senior rater until after he was
nonselected.  The ERAB indicated a simple willingness by evaluators to
upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to colonel
by the CY03B colonel selection board, which  convened  on  27 Oct  03.
The PRF reflected an overall recommendation of “Promote.”

On 26 Nov 03, the applicant filed another appeal with  the  ERAB.   On
7 Jan 04, the ERAB  declined  to  formally  reconsider  the  case  and
returned the application without action.  While reviewing  the  merits
of the case, the  ERAB  noted  the  rater’s  statement  indicated  the
bullets in question were discussed prior to the applicant meeting  the
CSB, but he and the additional rater felt there was no need to  change
them.  The board believed this statement in itself identified the fact
that the information was previously known and even discussed prior  to
the CSB and no action was  taken.   Further,  retrospective  views  of
facts  and  circumstances  usually  would  not  overcome  the   ERAB’s
presumption the initial assessment was valid.

OPR profile since 1998, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  4 Nov 98   Meets Standards
                  4 Nov 99   Meets Standards
                 26 Apr 00   Meets Standards
                 26 Apr 01   Meets Standards
                 26 Apr 02   Meets Standards
                 26 Apr 03   Meets Standards
                 21 Apr 04   Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE  notes  the  CY02B  CSB  was  able  to  distinguish  the
applicant had just become a commander  based  on  his  duty  effective
date.  This information was available on his OSB.  It is  very  common
for the CSB members not to know a  member’s  most  recent  performance
based on the closeout of the member’s OPR or training report  and  the
board convening date.  The PRF should capture a member’s entire career
and not just the most recent job performance.   The  applicant  should
not be granted SSB consideration after CSB results have been  released
based on what he now deems as  important  post-board.   The  applicant
also had an opportunity to write  a  letter  to  the  CSB  to  clarify
information or point out any relevant data he deemed  pertinent.   The
wing commander did not deem the alleged errors as important  pre-board
but,  after  the  applicant  was  nonselected,  they  are  now  deemed
important.   The  senior  rater  can  obtain  input  from  subordinate
commanders  but  that  does  not  relieve  the  senior  rater  of  the
responsibility of preparing the PRF.  The  request  should  have  been
related to a documented change rather than trying to strengthen a  PRF
or provide information already documented in the  member’s  record  of
performance.  Further, the applicant’s senior rater did not  earn  any
“Definitely Promote” (“DP”) allocations for the CY02B PRF.  Therefore,
the last line in Section IV of the applicant’s reaccomplished PRF  [“.
. . #2 of 12  LAF  eligibles,  a  DP  if  I  had  another.  .  .”]  is
inappropriate.  The  senior  rater  would  have  had  to  compete  his
eligible  officers  to  the  Management   Level   Review   (MLR)   via
aggregation.  If his number one eligible received a “DP” through  this
process, the senior rater still would  not  be  allowed  to  make  the
requested change because he did not have enough eligibles  to  earn  a
“DP” outright.  Allowing the senior rater to make this change would be
misleading to the CSB members.  The applicant has senior rater and MLR
president concurrence as required, but previously known or  documented
accomplishments should not be approved.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 17 Dec 04 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant partial relief.   After
carefully reading the supporting statements and the  two  versions  of
the PRF in question, we are not persuaded the original PRF  should  be
replaced with the revised PRF.  In this regard, we are unconvinced the
first and fifth lines are erroneous, or at least significantly  so  to
justify substituting them with the more finessed bullets.  As for  the
last line, the applicant and his senior rater have  not  overcome  the
Air  Force’s  assertion  that  the  senior  rater  did  not  earn  any
“Definitely Promote” allocations  and  had  to  compete  his  eligible
officers to the MLR via aggregation.  However, the primary  thrust  of
the applicant’s complaint, and his  evaluators’  support,  appears  to
revolve around his capabilities  as  a  commander.   While  the  CY02B
Colonel CSB had knowledge of the  applicant’s  commander  status,  the
contested PRF did not  speak  directly  to  his  performance  in  that
capacity.  We note that, in his revision,  the  senior  rater  deleted
line six in Section IV of the original  PRF.   We  conclude  that  the
original PRF should be amended by deleting that sixth  line,  and  the
new line, “Phenomenal CC/ldr--handpicked largest  comm  sq;  more  for
mission/people in 120 days than  previous  CC,”  be  inserted  as  the
second bullet in Section IV.  We further recommend  the  applicant  be
afforded SSB consideration for the CY02B board with the amended PRF in
his records.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that Section IV of the
Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form  709,  for  the  Calendar  Year
2002B (CY02B) Colonel Central Selection Board  (CSB),  is  amended  as
follows:

      a.  A new sentence, “Phenomenal CC/ldr--handpicked largest  comm
sq; more for mission/people in 120 days than previous CC,” be inserted
as the second bullet.

      b.  The sentence, “Finds solutions others miss: identified  flaw
and saved $20M during redesign of  critical  $75M  C3I  facility,”  be
deleted.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for  the  CY02B  Colonel
CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 February 2005 under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
                 Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2004-03306 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 Dec 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.




                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2004-03306




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to    , be corrected to show that Section IV of the
Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, for the Calendar Year
2002B (CY02B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), is amended as
follows:

            a.  A new sentence, “Phenomenal CC/ldr--handpicked largest
comm sq; more for mission/people in 120 days than previous CC,” be
inserted as the second bullet.

            b.  The sentence, “Finds solutions others miss: identified
flaw and saved $20M during redesign of critical $75M C3I facility,” be
deleted.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY02B
Colonel CSB.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency