RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00352
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL: ANTHONY W. WALLUK

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 NOV 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  16 July  2001
to 15 July 2002, be declared void and  that  he  receive  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the  grade  of  colonel  for  the
Calendar Years 2003B (CY03B) and 2004A  (CY04A)  Colonel  Central  Selection
Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is a pilot with an instructor pilot rating who  completed  duties  as  an
Aerospace  Physiology  Flight  Commander.   He  previously  served   as   an
instructor pilot and was reassigned to this  unique  position  in  order  to
remain at Sheppard Air Force Base  to  accommodate  medical  problems  of  a
family member.  In this assignment he was placed under  the  supervision  of
medical personnel rather than rated officers.  Specifically, his  rater  for
the OPR closing out 15 July 2002 is a neonatal intensive care nurse and  his
endorsing rater is a veterinarian.  Although the OPR dated 15 July 2002  was
positive, it was written by medical personnel who did not provide  him  with
fair consideration  for  promotion  to  colonel  as  a  rated  officer.   In
addition, the OPR  neglected  to  mention  significant  accomplishments  and
misstated other accomplishments and thus did not portray his true  potential
to the  promotion  board.   He  further  indicates  that  his  AFSC  on  the
contested report is incorrect.   He  served  as  a  pilot  assigned  to  the
Aerospace Physiology (AP) career field and his AFSC should reflect  the  “M”
prefix rather than the “T” prefix.

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

_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel effective and with a date of  rank  (DOR)  of  1  January
1999.

During the time period in question, the applicant  was  serving  as  an  “AP
Flight Commander.”

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
colonel by the CYO3B (27 October 2003), CY04A  (6 December  2004),  and  the
CY05A (12 September 2005) Colonel Central Selection Boards.

OPR profile since 1995 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 02 Aug 99              Meets Standards (MS)
                 06 Mar 00              Training Report (TR)
                 19 Sep 00                   (MS)
                 15 Jul 01                   (MS)
                 * 15 Jul 02                 (MS)
                 # 09 May 03                 (MS)
                ## 09 May 04                 (MS)
               ### 08 APR 05                 (MS)

* Contested Report
#Top Report at the CY03B Board
##Top Report at the CY04A Board
###Top Report at the CY05A Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial indicating the applicant  is  contending  that
since his report was written by medical personnel he was not  provided  fair
promotion  consideration  to  colonel  as  a  rated  officer.   He  is  also
contending  that  the  contested  OPR  neglected  to   mention   significant
accomplishments and misstated others.   The  applicant’s  rating  chain  was
determined by individuals who were aware that the applicant would  be  rated
by medical personnel versus other rated officers and still  chose  to  place
him in that position.  As such, the rater and additional rater were  in  the
best position to accurately reflect the performance of the applicant  during
the evaluation period.

Further, while not all  of  the  accomplishments  the  applicant  felt  were
important  were  included  on  his  report,  he   was   not   charged   with
assessing/preparing his own report.  It was his  evaluators’  responsibility
to  prepare  the  report  with  what  they   felt   were   the   significant
accomplishments in the space allotted.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed  the  evaluation  and  indicated  he  found  numerous
errors in his OPR closing 15 July 2002 after it had been signed  and  before
it became a part of his permanent record.  He made several attempts  through
the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and  his  supervisor  to  correct  his
record, but to no avail  -  the  errors  were  not  corrected.   He  further
indicates  he  does  not  know  if  his  supervisor  had  Occupational  Risk
Management (ORM) training as directed by the commander.  She wrote  the  OPR
and made it read like what she thought a good OPR should read  like.   Also,
the days of supervision were changed.  The applicant notes he  had  a  total
of 63 days of temporary duty (TDY) along with 32 days of leave for  a  total
of 95 days and his supervisor also had numerous TDYs.  He does not  know  or
care to judge his supervisor’s reasons for not acknowledging the errors  and
lack of desire to correct them.  As a ratee, when a supervisor doesn’t  want
to admit to errors and correction of those errors, he saw his only  recourse
to be the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).

The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO recommended the OPR remain in the applicant’s record.  They  defer
to  HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  for  SSB  consideration.   They  further  indicated  the
applicant had obtained and presented evidence supporting his claim  that  he
was authorized the “M” prefix per AFMAN 36-2105, attachment 8  as  a  result
of  his  duty  as  Aerospace  Physiology  Flight  Commander.   However,  the
applicant was also serving as an active flying undergraduate pilot  training
instructor pilot and was also authorized the “T” prefix per the  same  AFMAN
36-2105 reference above.  In fact, AFMAN 36-2105  does  direct  that  pilots
serving as instructors in undergraduate pilot training and  formal  training
units (FTU) WILL be identified with a “T” prefix…while  pilots  assigned  to
duty  as  Aerospace  Physiology  Instructors,  after  completion  of  formal
training, MAY be identified by prefix “M.”

The evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 September 2005, the applicant requested a 30-day extension to  respond
to the advisory opinion and on that  date  the  Board’s  staff  advised  the
applicant that in order to comply with a statutory mandate  to  process  all
applications extensions of time could not be honored.  Therefore, he had  to
respond within  the  30-day  time  period  or  request  his  application  be
withdrawn until such time as he was ready to proceed (Exhibit I).

On 26 September 2005, the applicant requested his case  be  administratively
closed (Exhibit J).

On 27 September 2005, the applicant’s case was  administratively  closed  in
accordance with his request (Exhibit K).

In a letter dated 18 January 2005[sic], counsel for the applicant  requested
the applicant’s case be reopened (Exhibit L).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  The applicant contends that  since  his
OPR rendered for the period 16 July 2001 to 15  July  2002  was  written  by
medical personnel, he was  not  provided  fair  promotion  consideration  to
colonel as a rated officer.  He asserts  the  report  neglected  to  mention
significant  accomplishments  and  misstated  other  accomplishments   which
ultimately did not portray his true potential  to  a  promotion  board.   He
also contends that as a pilot his duty title should reflect a prefix of  “M”
rather than “T.”  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record  we  are
not persuaded the contested report should be declared void and removed  from
his records.  We  note  the  applicant  has  not  submitted  any  supporting
documentation from the rating chain of the contested report and  has  failed
to provide evidence showing the report was not  an  accurate  assessment  as
rendered.  The applicant provided letters of support from individuals  under
his command during the contested time period which are duly noted;  however,
these individuals were  not  tasked  with  assessing  the  applicant’s  duty
performance.  The Board further  notes  the  applicant’s  rating  chain  was
determined by individuals who were aware the applicant  would  be  rated  by
medical personnel versus other rated officers and still chose to  place  him
in that position.  The Board believes the rater and  additional  rater  were
in the best position to accurately assess the performance of  the  applicant
during the contested time  period.   In  addition,  it  is  the  evaluators’
responsibility to prepare the report with what  they  feel  are  significant
accomplishments.  In regard to the duty title  prefix,  in  accordance  with
AFMAN  36-2105,  pilots  serving  as  instructors  in  undergraduate   pilot
training and formal training units will be identified with a  “T”  prefix  -
while pilots assigned to duty as  Aerospace  Physiology  Instructors,  after
completion of  formal  training,  may  be  identified  by  the  prefix  “M.”
Although the applicant served as an Aerospace Physiology  Flight  Commander,
he also served as an active flying undergraduate pilot  training  instructor
pilot and was identified with the “T” prefix,  as  directed  by  the  AFMAN.
Therefore, his duty history is consistent and in compliance with the  AFMAN.
 In reference to the number of days of  supervision,  the  applicant  claims
that the rater of the contested report was TDY on numerous  occasions.   The
Board notes that a minimum requirement of days to  write  a  report  is  120
days and that requirement was met.  In view of the above, we agree with  the
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their  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.

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 23 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member







The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2005-00352 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 May 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 10 Jun 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 18 Aug 05.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Aug 05.
   Exhibit I.  Electronic Mail, Applicant, dated 23 Sep 05.
   Exhibit J.  Electronic Mail, AFBCMR, dated 23 Sep 05.
   Exhibit K.  Electronic Mail, Applicant, dated 26 Sep 05.
   Exhibit L.  Electronic Mail, AFBCMR, dated 26 Sep 05.
   Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Sep 05.
   Exhibit N.  Letter, Counsel, dated 18 Jan 05[sic].





                       LAURENCE M. GRONER
                       Panel Chair