RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03088
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 April 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) considered by the CY03B  (27 October
2003) (P0603B) Colonel Central Selection Board  (CSB)  be  replaced  with  a
corrected PRF provided with this application, as fully  recommended  by  his
Senior Rater and Management Level Review (MLR) President.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFBCMR directed that his Officer Performance Report  (OPR)  closing  out
on 14 February 2003  be  replaced.   The  material  error  resident  in  the
original OPR directly transposed to the PRF  and  MLR  evaluation,  and  the
Senior  Rater/MLR  President  revised  the  PRF  to  reflect  the  corrected
information.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  a  copy  of  the  original  PRF
considered by the P0603B CSB, a corrected PRF, a  statement  from  the  DCSA
Director (the Senior Rater and MLR President), dated 25 July  2006,  a  copy
of the AFBCMR BC-2005-00801 Directive, dated 22 November  2005,  and  copies
of an e-mail string  pertaining  to  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) decision.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  Lieutenant
Colonel.  On 22 November 2005, the AFBCMR directed  that  his  original  OPR
rendered for the period 9 April 2002 through 14 February  2003  be  declared
void and removed from his records, and be replaced with a corrected OPR  for
the same period to reflect  “SSS  next,  then  as  a  Group  Commander!”  in
Section VI.  It was further directed that he be considered for promotion  to
the grade of Colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar
Year 2003B (CY03B) Colonel CSB, and for any subsequent boards for which  the
corrected OPR was not a matter of record.

He has four non-selections to the grade of Colonel by the CY03B (27  October
2003) (P0603B), CY04A (6 December 2004) (P0604A), CY05A (12 September  2005)
(P0605A), and CY06A (15 May  2006)  (P0606A)  Colonel  CSBs.   He  was  also
considered for promotion to Colonel with the  substituted  14 February  2003
OPR by the P0603B and P0604A boards at the 25 September 2006  SSB;  however,
the results have not yet been released.

He filed an appeal with the ERAB to replace the PRF considered by the  CY03B
(27 October 2003) (P0603B) Colonel CSB with a corrected  PRF.   They  denied
his request, stating they were not convinced the original report was  unjust
or wrong.  On 12 September 2006, AFPC/DPPPEP advised  applicant  via  e-mail
that their analysis as to why the ERAB denied his appeal  was  probably  due
to the  fact  that  they  questioned  why  the  PRF  was  almost  completely
rewritten, and the changes to the PRF were too significant given the  change
to the OPR.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. They point out that a substantial  change  to
the record of performance used to  assess  the  performance-based  potential
may justify changes to a PRF.  The change must, in effect,  remove  negative
information from an officer’s record or add positive information  which  was
not previously known, and a simple administrative change  to  an  evaluation
report rarely meets the criteria to re-accomplish a PRF.  The applicant  has
provided  a  re-accomplished  PRF  with  a  completely  rewritten  promotion
recommendation (Section IV) and an upgrade to the  promotion  recommendation
in Section IX from “Promote” to “Definitely Promote”.  They state  that  the
changes made to the applicant’s EPR did not, in their opinion, result  in  a
“substantive record change” in that they were only two  wording  changes  to
the command recommendation, and this is not considered a significant  change
to justify changes to a PRF.

They also point out that Senior Raters and MLR Presidents must  explain  the
change to the record of performance, its impact on  the  PRF,  and  how  the
requested  PRF  action  relates  to  the  changed  record  of   performance.
Although  the  Senior  Rater,  also  the  MLR  President,  has  provided   a
memorandum, he has not specified how replacing the  2003  OPR  significantly
altered the PRF, state whether or not negative information was removed  from
the report which could have caused a significant change to  the  report,  or
state that new positive information was added to the report.   The  optional
job push was the only change to the applicant’s record, and the  only  “new”
information provided to the Senior Rater, and does not  justify  a  complete
rewrite of the PRF.

The AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA has stated that if the AFBCMR views the statement  provided  by  the
Senior  Rater/MLR  President  as  sufficient   evidence   to   support   the
applicant’s request, it may rely on the  statement  to  make  the  requested
correction.  They state that DPPPEP,  in  reaching  their  conclusions,  has
relied  on  the  principles  outlined  in  the  AFI  governing  PRF   appeal
requirements;  however,  they  advise  that  these  rules  are   technically
applicable only to appeals filed  before  the  ERAB,  and  not  the  AFBCMR.
While they agree that the principles embodied in these rules are  sound  and
should normally be  followed,  they  do  not  believe  these  rules  are  an
absolute prerequisite to success before  the  AFBCMR.   Additionally,  given
the strong Senior Rater/MLR President support,  they  are  not  prepared  to
discredit the recommendation simply because he failed to elaborate  in  more
detail.

The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation on 22  January  2007.   He
pointed out that the ERAB considered the changes to his OPR significant  and
denied his request to have the original OPR  replaced.   Despite  this,  the
AFBCMR later approved his request to replace  the  original  OPR.   The  OPR
changes were also significant to the Senior Rater,  and  the  PRF  has  been
updated by the originator of  the  PRF/MLR  president  to  reflect  the  new
information.

He also offers the AFPC/JA advisory at  Exhibit  D  as  a  rebuttal  to  the
AFPC/DPPPEP position that the Senior Rater has not specified  how  replacing
the 2003 OPR significantly altered the PRF.  He  also  points  out  that  he
requested AFPC/PBX to defer his evaluation by both the  September  2006  and
January 2007 SSBs, pending the outcome of his appeals.

He emphasizes that the Senior Rater/MLR President has stated that he felt  a
substantive record change has occurred since the  original  board  met,  and
replacing the OPR significantly altered the  information  available  at  the
time the PRF was written as well  as  the  MLR’s  ability  to  evaluate  his
promotion  potential.  Given  this,  the  content  of  the  PRF  would  have
significantly changed, and his records would  have  earned  a  DP  from  the
original MLR.

In support of his rebuttal, he has submitted a personal statement, dated  22
January 2007, and copies of the AFPC/DPPPEP memorandum,  dated  15  December
2006, AFPC/DPPP memorandum , dated  19  September  2005,  AFBCMR  Directive,
dated 22 November 2005, his e-mail to AFPC/PBX, dated 18 August 2006, an  e-
mail from AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 September 2006, his e-mail to AFPC/PBX,  dated
12 December 2006, AFPC/JA memorandum, dated 22 December 2006,  a  memorandum
from the Senior Rater/MLR President, dated 25 July  2006,  and  a  corrected
PRF.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error  or  injustice  to  warrant  upgrading  the  PRF
prepared for the CY03B Colonel CSB.   Applicant’s  senior  rater,  who  also
served as  the  MLR  President  of  the  CY03B  Colonel  CSB,  has  strongly
recommended replacement of his 2003 Colonel PRF with the  PRF  contained  in
this application to correct  an  unjust  situation  and  allow  the  SSB  to
perform a complete and accurate assessment.  He feels a  substantive  record
change has occurred since the original board met.  Replacing  the  2003  OPR
significantly altered the information available at  the  time  the  PRF  was
written, as well as the  ability  of  the  MLR  to  evaluate  his  promotion
potential.  Given this material error correction, the  content  of  the  PRF
would have significantly changed and applicant’s records would  have  earned
a “DP” from the original MLR.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that  the  Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar  Year  2003B  (CY03B)  Central
Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and removed from his records,  and
the PRF contained in this application be accepted for file in its place.

It is further recommended  that  applicant’s  record,  to  include  the  PRF
contained in this application, be considered for promotion to the  grade  of
colonel  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the  CY03B  Central  Colonel
Selection Board.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03088
in Executive Session on 15 February 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
                       Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated, 15 Dec 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 22 Dec 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 07, w/atchs
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 07.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair
AFBCMR 2006-03088




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX be corrected to show that the
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar
Year 2003B (CY03B) Central Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records and the attached PRF be accepted
for file in its place.

      It is further directed that his record, to include the attached PRF,
be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection
Board for the CY03B Central Colonel Selection Board.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
PRF