RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00053
                                             INDEX CODE:  131.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  22 June 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A re-accomplished Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  be  substituted  for
the one currently in his record.

His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of major be corrected to reflect a  date
as if he had been promoted by his in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) CY03A  (5  May
2003)(P0403A) Major Central Selection Board (CSB).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records met  the  CY03A  (5  May  2003)  (P0403A)  Major  CSB,  and  two
subsequent boards, with a material administrative error that  was  no  fault
of his.   The  error  was  eventually  corrected  and  he  was  subsequently
selected for promotion, but well after his expected promotion date.

When he was considered by the CY03A and two subsequent  boards,  his  record
included an Officer Performance Report (OPR) with inappropriate  statements.
 His senior rater subsequently acknowledged, in writing, the probability  of
that OPR having negatively influenced him and the promotion boards.

Although the OPR was eventually corrected and he was  subsequently  selected
for promotion,  he  was  unaware  of  the  possibility  of  having  his  PRF
rewritten.  The senior rater (SR) has since retired  and  he  is  unable  to
locate him.

These circumstances were clearly the root for the  delay  in  his  promotion
and, were  it  not  for  these  circumstances,  the  delay  would  not  have
occurred.

In support of his appeal, he has provided a personal  letter  from  the  Air
Intelligence Agency (AIA) Commander, dated 28 October 2004.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the  CY03A  (5 May  2003)  (P0403A)  and  CY03B  (8 December  2003)
(P0403B) Major CSBs.  He petitioned the ERAB to void his OPR closing  out  4
June 2000; however, the ERAB directed that the  report  be  administratively
corrected and that he be granted SSB consideration.  He was  considered  and
not selected for promotion to the grade of major at a 24 May 2004  SSB.   He
was selected for promotion to the grade of major by  the  CY04A  (1 November
2004) (P0404A) Major CSB, effective and with date of  rank  of  of  1  March
2006.  He retired in the grade of major effective 1 April 2007.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of applicant’s request to substitute the  PRF.
 They advise that an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) determined  that
the  comment,  “After  a  lapse  in  officership  Capt  M-----   has   since
demonstrated a strong desire to excel”, contained in his OPR closing 4  June
2000, was a referral comment and, since it was  not  the  intention  of  the
rater to make the report a referral report,  the  comment  was  subsequently
removed from this OPR.

Although applicant has provided a memo from his SR, dated  28 October  2004,
which contained the statement “The OPR as originally written had the  strong
potential to unfairly prejudice a SR  and  promotion  board  in  a  negative
fashion,  and  did  not  accurately  reflect  your  true  potential.”,  this
statement is generic in nature in that he refers to “a  senior  rater”,  not
himself in particular.  The memo also  contains  the  statement  by  the  SR
“I’ve personally worked with you and know you as a high caliber officer.   A
review  of  your  record  shows  that  throughout  your  career,  you   have
consistently displayed strong leadership, technical savy, expert  management
and meticulous planning.”  Given this statement, they are not convinced  the
SR was unfairly prejudiced by the  OPR  statement  when  preparing  the  PRF
since he had personal knowledge  of  the  applicant  and  viewed  him  in  a
positive light.  In fact, the bottom line of the PRF  in  question  provides
three key positive, optional  recommendations:  definitely  promote,  select
for ISS, and select for command.  These three optional  statements  are  not
given to every officer and are not given lightly.

AFR 36-2401, A1.6, states that comments  and  recommendations  are  required
from the SR who signed  the  PRF  and  the  Management  Level  Review  (MLR)
president who reviewed it.  If the SR is deceased  or  retired  and  is  not
available, the MLR  president  who  originally  reviewed  the  PRF  can  act
instead.   While  the  SR  provided  a  memo  stating  the  OPR  could  have
negatively impacted applicant’s PRF, he did not allude to correction of  the
PRF, or that the PRF was inaccurate as written.  Additionally, AFI  36-2401,
A.1.3.7,  provides  specific  instructions  on  how  to  contact   retirees.
Applicant states the SR has since retired,  yet  he  has  not  provided  any
documentation of attempting to locate and/or contact the  SR  via  the  AFPC
locator.  In the absence of supporting documents from the SR,  a  member  is
required to provide supporting documents from the MLR president.   Applicant
has failed to provide supporting documentation from the  MLR  president  and
it appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with  applicable
regulations.

AFI 36-2401, paragraph  1.3.7,  states  the  ERAB  will  not  consider,  nor
approve, requests to reaccomplish a report without the applicant  furnishing
a new report.  Applicant has failed to provide a reaccomplished report  with
the  original   evaluator’s   signatures   and   the   required   supporting
documentation from the SR and MLR president justifying the  need  to  change
the PRF in question.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.   To  effectively  challenge  a  PRF,  it  is
necessary to hear from all  members  of  the  rating  chain,  not  only  for
support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant  has  failed
to provide any information/support from the rating chain  on  the  contested
PRF. In the absence of information from evaluators, official  substantiation
of  error  or  injustice  from  the  Inspector  General  or  Military  Equal
Opportunity is appropriate; however, it has not been provided in  this  case
and it appears the reports  were  accomplished  in  direct  accordance  with
applicable regulations.  An evaluation report  is  considered  to  represent
the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and, once it  is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants  correction
or removal from an individual’s records.  The burden  of  proof  is  on  the
applicant, and he  has  not  substantiated  the  contested  report  was  not
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based  on  knowledge  available  at
the time.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of applicant’s request for a  direct  promotion
to the grade of major and SSB consideration by the P0403A Major CSB  with  a
substituted PRF.  He has two non-selections for promotion to  the  grade  of
major by the CY03A  (5 May  2003)  (P0403A)  and  CY03B  (8  December  2003)
(P0403B) Major CSBs.  He petitioned the ERAB to void his OPR closing  out  4
June 2000; however, the ERAB directed that the  report  be  administratively
corrected and that he be granted SSB consideration.  He  was  considered  by
the P0403A and P0403B CSBs at the 24 May 2004 SSB and was not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of  major.   He  was  considered  above-the-promotion
zone (APZ) by the CY04A (1 November 2004) (P0404A) Major  CSB  and  selected
for promotion to the grade of major with a date of rank of 1 March 2006.

No relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the  existence  of  a
probable error or injustice.  The results of the P0404A board were based  on
a complete review of his entire record, assessing the whole  person  factors
such as job  performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of
experience,  leadership,  and  education.   Although  an  officer   may   be
qualified for promotion, he may not be the best qualified of other  eligible
officers competing for the limited number  of  promotion  vacancies  in  the
judgment of a selection board.  Furthermore, to  grant  a  direct  promotion
would be unfair  to  all  other  officers  who  have  extremely  competitive
records but did not get promoted.  Additionally, both Congress and DoD  have
made clear their intent that errors ultimately  affecting  promotion  should
be resolved through the use of SSBs.  When many good officers are  competing
for a limited number of promotions, it is  extremely  competitive.   Without
access to all the competing records and a  review  of  their  content,  they
believe sending approved cases to SSBs for remedy is the  fairest  and  best
practice.  In this case, not only would direct promotion  be  inappropriate,
but SSB consideration would be inappropriate as well.

The AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO evaluations are at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluations was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  23
March 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.   However,  as  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   The
Board noted the ERAB directed that  the  OPR  containing  the  inappropriate
comment  be  administratively  corrected,  and  that  he  was   subsequently
considered by the P0403A and P0403B CSBs at the 24 May 2004 SSB and was  not
selected for promotion to the grade of major.  Additionally,  while  the  SR
provided a memo stating the OPR could have negatively  impacted  applicant’s
PRF, he did not allude to correction  of  the  PRF,  or  that  the  PRF  was
inaccurate as written.  Nor has  applicant  provided  a  reaccomplished  PRF
with  the  original  evaluator’s  signatures  and  the  required  supporting
documentation from the SR and MLR president justifying the  need  to  change
the PRF  in  question.   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 issue(s) 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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-00053
in Executive Session on 15 May 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 10 Feb 07, w/atch.
.   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 Mar 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 07.




                                   MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                   Panel Chair