RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03010
            INDEX CODE: 131.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 Apr 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) as if selected
by the Calendar Year 2004J (CY04J) LTC Central Selection Board  (CSB),
or in the alternative:

      a.  The last line in Section IV of the Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF) considered by the CY04J LTC CSB be amended by replacing the
words “his advice  instills  confidence,  absolutely  promote!!”  with
“must select for SDE and then base SJA!”

      b.  The Management Level Review  (MLR)  determined  whether  the
amended PRF qualifies for a “Definitely Promote  (DP)”  recommendation
and he be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the
CY04J LTC CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his nonselection counseling he discovered one  reason  for  his
nonselection was because his PRF did not  have  professional  military
education (PME) or leadership recommendations.  His  senior  rater,  a
Marine  general  officer,  was  not  aware   that   a   PME/leadership
recommendation could be included.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) gave no rationale for denying his appeal.

The applicant provided, among other documents, a  personal  statement,
supporting letters from the senior rater of the contested PRF and  the
president of his  command’s  Management  Level  Review  (MLR),  and  a
reaccomplished but unsigned PRF containing the desired verbiage.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was considered but not selected by the CY04J (6 Dec 04),
CY05B (6 Jul 05), and CY06A (13 Mar 06) LTC CSBs.

During the period in question, the applicant was serving in the  grade
of major as the chief of administrative law at HQ US Southern Command,
Staff Judge Advocate, Miami, FL.  The contested PRF  had  a  promotion
recommendation of “Promote.”  The  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)
period ending 21 Apr 04 was the top report in the applicant’s  Officer
Selection Record (OSR) for the CY04J LTC CSB  and  contained  PME  and
leadership recommendations.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial, contending the  applicant  seems  to
place undue importance on the PRF in the promotion process. While  the
PRF may not be worded the way the applicant would like to describe his
accomplishments, the selection board had his entire officer  selection
record (OSR).  Additionally,  the  comments  he  wishes  are  optional
comments.  AFI 36-2401 clearly states a report  is  not  erroneous  or
unfair  because  an  applicant  believes   it   contributed   to   his
nonselection.   Paragraph  A1.6.1.  specifically  addresses  PRFs  and
requires a substantive change  to  the  record  of  performance  or  a
material error in the PRF preparation to  justify  changing  the  PRF.
There was no substantive change to the applicant’s record and lack  of
an optional  statement  does  not  qualify  as  a  material  error  in
processing the PRF.  They assume the applicant received a copy of  the
contested PRF approximately 30 days before the central promotion board
but he apparently chose not to correct or appeal its contents prior to
the board or to write a letter to the board.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  contends  the  advisory  evaluation   is   inaccurate,
misleading and mischaracterizes his request. Although he has had three
nonselections, those boards occurred in a period of 16 months.  He has
actively pursued this action.  He describes the timeline and  problems
he encountered in his efforts to correct his records.  He contends  HQ
AFPC/DPPPEP is  disingenuous  when  it  implies  that  a  PRF  is  not
important in the promotion process; this  argument  goes  against  the
very purpose of the PRF.  A PRF is more than a summary  of  a  ratee’s
past; it is a current  rater’s  subjective  evaluation  of  a  ratee’s
readiness to assume a higher rank.  Neither he nor his senior rater, a
Marine  brigadier  general,  knew  the  significance  of  the  missing
recommendations.   His  senior   rater   wanted   to   include   those
recommendations but was handcuffed by a misunderstanding of the rules.
 He asks that he be promoted to the grade of  LTC  or  substitute  the
corrected PRF and grant him an SSB.

A complete copy of applicant’s 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  and
carefully considered the supporting statements from his  senior  rater
and the MLR president. However, these statements have not persuaded us
that the PRF for the CY04J LTC CSB is erroneous or unjust as rendered.
The senior  rater’s  contended  misunderstanding  regarding  providing
promotion and command recommendations is plausible  because  he  is  a
Marine general officer, but the applicant’s assertion that he also did
not know the “significance” of  these  recommendations  is  surprising
considering he is an Air Force  officer  and  lawyer.   Regardless,  a
report is not  erroneous  or  unfair  because  a  member  believes  it
contributed to a nonselection for  promotion,  or  that  it  would  be
improved by additional enhancements.  AFI 36-2401,  paragraph  A1.5.1.
speaks to this issue, which states in part, “The simple willingness by
evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid  basis
for doing so.  For example, requests to add optional statements  (such
as PME, job/command “push” recommendation, or  stratification)  to  an
evaluation report or PRF will  normally  not  form  the  basis  for  a
successful appeal.  As these statements are  not  mandatory  [emphasis
AFI’s]  for  inclusion,  their  omission  does  not  make  the  report
inaccurate.  You must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on
its content.”  The applicant has not met this burden.   Therefore,  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 January 2007 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-03010 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Dec 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jan 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair