RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01251
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  13 Oct 06


__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him  and  viewed
by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection  Board
be replaced with a revised PRF supported by  his  senior  rater  and
management level review (MLR) president.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
special selection board  (SSB)  for  the  CY00A  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFBCMR acknowledged an error/injustice  occurred  with  the  PRF
prepared on him for the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel  Central  Selection
Board when it voided and replaced it with a  “corrected”  PRF.   The
most significant change made to the PRF occurred in Section IV  with
the inclusion of a peer group  ranking,  which  stated  he  was  the
“#1/32 Majors at AFC2TIG.”  This corrected PRF was not available for
his senior rater to review when preparing  his  PRF  for  the  CY00A
promotion board.  He has  suffered  an  injustice  because  had  his
records been complete at the time the PRF  was  prepared,  he  would
have received a “Definitely Promote” (DP)  recommendation  from  his
senior rater.  He has a statement from his senior rater that  states
he would have awarded him a “DP” from  his  earned  “DP”  allocation
pool if the corrected CY99B PRF had been  a  part  of  his  records.
Further, he notes that his senior rater  would  have  been  able  to
award him a “DP” without any consideration the MLR  president  could
have marked it down.

The applicant reviews and  emphasizes  the  reasons  stated  by  the
senior rater why he would have given the applicant a “DP.”

The applicant notes that he has a statement from his  MLR  president
approving the  changes  to  the  PRF  and  recommending  he  receive
supplemental promotion consideration.

In support of his appeal the applicant provides a statement from his
senior rater, a statement from  his  MLR  president,  a  summary  of
changes to the CY00A PRF, a copy  of  the  revised  CY00A  PRF,  the
original CY00A PRF, and a copy of the directive issued by the AFBCMR
correcting his records in his previous case.

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

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 13 Apr 84.  He
was promoted up to the grade of major.  He was  considered  and  not
selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the  CY99B      (30
Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01), and CY02B (12 Nov  02)
Central Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Selection Boards.

On 6 Aug 02, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  denied  a  request
from the applicant to substitute a revised report  for  the  Officer
Performance Report closing 2 Jul 99 and to replace the PRF  prepared
on him and viewed by  the  CY99B  (30  Nov  99)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central  Selection  Board.   The   applicant   had   contended   the
stratification on his 2 Jul 99 OPR and CY99B PRF was unintentionally
ambiguous.  The ERAB stated that the proposed changes did not remove
negative information  or  add  positive  information  that  was  not
previously known.

On 6 Mar 03, the AFBCMR considered an application from the applicant
to:

        a.  Replace the PRF prepared on him and viewed by the  CY99B
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board with a revised PRF.

        b.  Replace the OPR rendered on him for the period 28 Feb 99
through 2 Jul 99 with a revised report.

        c.  Grant him consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY99B Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
Selection Board.

The Board approved the applicant’s request to replace the CY99B  PRF
with a revised one and granted the applicant promotion consideration
by SSB.  The Board denied the applicant’s request to replace the OPR
closing 2 Jul 99.

The applicant was considered  and  not  selected  for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel by SSB on 19 May 03.  He retired from active duty
in the grade of major effective 1 Jun 03.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  requests.   The
applicant’s  senior  rater  indicates  he  requested  and   received
inputs/supporting  documentation   for   consideration   from   each
officer’s additional rater (e.g. letters of appreciation from  other
units or command, previous PRFs,  etc.)  to  assist  in  making  the
determination of submitting officers to  compete  for  carryover  or
aggregation.  However, using previous PRFs is not the intent of  AFI
36-2406, Para 8.1.4.1.1, “other  reliable  information,”  which  the
paragraph  further  states,  “except  as  paragraph  3.7  or   other
regulatory guidance prohibits.”  The PRF  completed  for  the  CY99B
promotion  board  was   one   senior   rater’s   recommendation   of
“performance-based” differentiation to assist that  specific  board.
In all instances, the requested change to Section IV of a  PRF  must
be related to the documented error.  The revised  PRF  submitted  by
the applicant has been totally rewritten.  AFPC/DPPPE contends  that
the applicant’s senior rater did review accurate information  within
the applicant’s record at the time  the  CY99B  PRF  was  completed.
Although the AFBCMR approved a revised PRF for the  CY99B  promotion
board, once concluded, the PRF is removed from the Officer Selection
Record and is only used for historical, legal, and  appeal  purposes
in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Para 8.1.5.5.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provides  his  responses  to  the  facts,  discussion  and
recommendation sections of the evaluation prepared by AFPC:

        a.  Facts.   Applicant  opines  that  by  quoting  a  single
sentence from AFI 36-2406, Para 8.1.5.5, AFPC/DPPPE has  missed  the
intent of the passage.   The  applicant  provides  a  quote  of  the
paragraph and asserts that  it  is  clearly  providing  guidance  to
AFPC/DPSRI on how  to  handle  PRFs  once  received  from  AFPC/DPPB
following the central selection  board.   “It  is  not  intended  to
provide  guidance  or  prohibit  a  senior  rater  from  considering
information on a PRF provided to him by the officer as part  of  the
senior rater’s writing process.”  The letters he provides  from  his
senior rater and additional rater verify that previous PRFs were  in
fact considered during the PRF process by the senior rater  for  the
CY00A promotion board.

The applicant opines that the AFBCMR acknowledged an error/injustice
occurred with the PRF prepared on him for the CY99B promotion  board
when they voided it and replaced it with a revised PRF.

        b.  Discussion.  In response to AFPC’s assertion that  using
previous PRFs is “not the intent of  AFI  36-2406,  Para  8.1.4.1.1,
“other reliable information,” he  asserts  that  senior  raters  may
consider other reliable information about duty performance and since
all PRFs for lieutenant colonel promotion  boards  are  written  and
signed  by  a  General  officer,  this  makes   the   PRF   reliable
information.

In response to AFPC/DPPPE’s reference to the requirement in AFI  36-
2401 that “in all instances,” the requested  change  to  Section  IV
must be related to the documented  error,  the  applicant  seeks  to
justify  the  complete  rewrite  of  the  PRF  because  the  overall
recommendation  changed  from  “Promote”  to  “Definitely  Promote.”
Applicant opines that Section  IV  must  support  the  now  stronger
promotion recommendation.  Applicant also notes that the entire  PRF
was not rewritten, only three of the first eight lines.

The applicant also addresses  AFPC/DPPPE’s  assertion  that  once  a
board is concluded the PRF is removed from the OSR and is only  used
for  historical,  legal  and   appeal   purposes.    The   applicant
reemphasizes that this requirement does not prohibit  senior  raters
from using PRFs provided to them by the officer.

          c. Recommendation.     In    regards    to    AFPC/DPPPE’s
recommendation to deny his  appeal,  the  applicant  emphasizes  the
support he has from his senior rater  and  MLEB  president  and  the
actions of the AFBCMR in his previous case.

Applicant provides a letter of support from his additional rater.

The 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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

__________________________________________________________________

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-2005-
01251 in Executive Session on 30 August 2005, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Jul 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 05, w/atchs.




                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair