RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02135
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted a Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the
Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C) (P0506C)  Lieutenant  Colonels  Central
Selection Board (CSB) with a letter to the promotion board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was provided  a  copy  of  his  signed  AF  IMT  709,  Promotion
Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  that  reflected  excellent   promotion
stratification in the first line, which read “My #3 of  20  in-the-
promotion zone (IPZ)/above-the-promotion zones  (APZs)!”   However,
prior to submission, the senior rater changed  the  first  line  to
read, “#1 of 115 eligible FGOs, 1Q06!”  This change was potentially
confusing and he  did  not  have  an  opportunity  to  discuss  the
possible repercussions of the change with his senior  rater  or  to
address any concerns with the P0506C CSB.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted  a  letter  from  his
former senior rater, dated  7  Jun  07  and  a  copy  of  his  PRF,
submitted for his review.

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in  the  grade  of  major,  with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1 Mar 03, and a  duty  title  of
KC135 Flight Test Evaluation Pilot/GFR.

Applicant was considered and nonselected by  the  CY06C  Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Boards, which convened on 28 Nov 06.

Applicant's  OPR  profile  for  the  last  five  reporting  periods
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      15 Mar 03  Meet Standards (MS)
      19 Feb 04  MS
      19 Feb 05  MS
*     19 Feb 06  MS
      19 Feb 07  MS

* Top report which met the CY06C CSB.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application and recommended denial.

The applicant was nonselected by the CY06C (28 Nov  06)  Lieutenant
Colonel CSB.  Applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions
of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,
20 Feb 04.

Although the applicant did not receive a copy of  the  correct  PRF
prior to the CSB the senior rater was contacted  upon  notification
of this error and the senior rater has  stated  that  the  PRF  was
changed which was the senior rater intent to do and  the  incorrect
copy was inadvertently given to the applicant.

Once the error was discovered the applicant has  had  a  chance  to
discuss with the senior rater; however, the senior rater stated the
PRF which met the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel CSB was the PRF intended
to  meet  the  Board.   In  accordance  with  AFI   36-2406,   para
8.3.2.5.2., “…In all cases, a senior rater has the final  authority
to determine the content of the PRFs he or  she  prepares…”.   Also
para 8.1.4.1., states “the Senior Rater is solely  responsible  for
evaluating  each  officer’s  Record   of   Performance   and   Duty
Qualification History Brief.”  In the applicant’s case  the  senior
rater was attempting to strengthen the PRF to the advantage of  the
applicant.

Finally, while the PRF the applicant received  may  have  been  the
incorrect one, the PRF which met the CY06C CSB was the PRF intended
by the senior rater to meet the subject board.  The board ID on the
both PRFs was incorrect; however, this was an administrative  error
and had no bearing on the PRF that met the subject board.

HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed the application and recommended no change to
the PRF;  however,  they  did  recommend  applicant  be  given  the
opportunity to write a letter to the P0506C  board  clarifying  the
changed statement on his PRF and be granted SSB consideration.  The
letter should comply with the letter writing guidelines  in  effect
at the time of the original P0506C CSB.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant noted in his rebuttal, that everything mentioned in  para
b of DPPPE’s advisory took place well after the board convened.  It
was during his non-select counseling, he discovered  the  disparity
between the PRF that met the board  and  the  signed  PRF  copy  he
received in the mail from the senior rater.

He was unaware of the  fact  that  there  were  two  PRFs  and  the
disparity between them prior to the CSB.   The  PRF  that  met  the
board had a confusing and weaker stratification bullet in  Line  1;
since he never received the PRF, he did not have an opportunity  to
discuss the change with the senior rater or write a letter  to  the
CSB.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

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.  The Board noted the applicant was inadvertently provided  an
incorrect copy of the PRF, which was subsequently  corrected.   The
applicant  believes  the  corrected   PRF   contained   potentially
confusing comments which he did not have an opportunity to  discuss
the possible repercussions of this change with  the  senior  rater.
Additionally,  the  Board  noted  the  Chief,   Officer   Promotion
Management, recommended the applicant be given  an  opportunity  to
write a letter to the promotion board and SSB.  Notwithstanding the
above, while it appears the applicant was presented a different PRF
than the one considered by the CSB, we find the error  harmless  in
nature.  Moreover, we agree with the Senior Rater, when  he  opines
that  it  was  his  intentions  to  strengthen  the  report.   Upon
discovery, the applicant has had an  opportunity  to  discuss  this
issue with the senior rater and he has stated, the  PRF  which  met
the CSB was the PRF he intended to meet the Board.   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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2007-02135 in Executive Session on 4 December  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
      Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jul 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter,      HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Aug 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 07.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair