RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03393
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.03
      XXXXXXXXXXX                            COUNSEL: NONE
                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  30  Jan  07  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  and   his   Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) be replaced  with  the  corrected  forms  and  his
record be considered by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar
Year 2007A (CY07A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPR  and  PRF  are  not  correct,  accurate  and  do  not  represent  an
assessment of his actual duty performance.  This was the first time  an  OPR
and PRF were completed using the  Active  Duty/Air  National  Guard  command
structure.  Inputs were not as strong due to lack  of  coordination  between
components.  The OPR was  submitted  for  record  four  days  prior  to  the
promotion board convening and the operational supervisor was not allowed  to
provide stratification, which harmed his promotion consideration.

In support of his request, the applicant provides  supporting  letters  from
his commander, rater, senior rater, and Management Level  Review  President;
and copies of the current and proposed OPRs and PRFs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel having assumed that grade effective with a date  of  rank
of 1 May 02.  The applicant has one non-selection to the  grade  of  colonel
(0-6) by the CY07A Colonel CSB.  He filed an appeal under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  however,
the ERAB considered and denied his request.  The following is  a  resume  of
the applicant’s performance ratings:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      14 Jun 00 (Major)                            MS
      14 Jun 01                              MS
      14 Jun 02 (Lt Col)                           MS
      14 Jun 03                              MS
      30 Jan 04                                    MS
      30 Jan 05                                    MS
      30 Jan 06                                    MS
      30 Jan 07                                    MS



_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPSIDEP  recommends  denial.   DPSIDEP  states  that  they   found   no
administrative errors or injustices in the contested OPR and PRF.  With  the
exception  of  some   unauthorized,   and   some   optional   stratification
statements, the new version of the OPR and PRF provide  no  new  information
that was not already available to the board in the contested  reports.   Any
stratification  is  optional  and  the  evaluator’s  were  aware   of   this
requirement well before the contested reports became  a  matter  of  record.
The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO  recommends  denial.   DPSOO  states  they  reviewed  and  accept
DPSIDEP’s recommendation and based on their recommendation, DPSOO  finds  no
basis to grant SSB consideration.  The AFPC/DPSOO complete evaluation is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant respectfully requests replacement of the OPR and PRF due  to
proper procedures not being followed prior to the convening of  the  CY07A
board.  The Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) was never provided to  inform
him and his supervisor that he was being considered for promotion.   Since
his administrative command  supervision  was  not  aware  of  his  in-the-
promotion-zone eligibility there was not timely completion of the  OPR  or
PRF  to  afford  him  the  best   possible   opportunity   for   promotion
consideration.  With the late inclusion of the OPR, he  was  not  afforded
the opportunity to perform a complete personnel  record  check  to  ensure
accuracy and completeness-which is his right and is highlighted in the OPB
document.  The applicant’s complete letter 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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and the applicant’s submission, including the statements from  his
rating chain, we are not persuaded that the contested OPR and PRF should  be
replaced and his corrected record be considered by an  SSB.   We  took  note
that the applicant’s rating chain supports his request to  replace  the  OPR
and PRF due to issues inherent to the stand-up of the first Air Fore  Active
Duty/Air National Guard C-130 associate unit.  However, with  the  exception
of the optional stratification statements, in our opinion, the proposed  OPR
and PRF are not substantially different nor do they appear to  significantly
change the record to the extent that SSB would be appropriate.  In  view  of
the  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  sufficient  evidence  to  support  a
determination that the duly constituted selection  board,  vested  with  the
authority to score officer’s records for promotion, was unable  to  reach  a
reasonable decision concerning his promotability in relation to  his  peers,
we  find  no  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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-03393
in Executive Session on 13 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                 Ms. Barbara J. Barger, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
03393 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Oct 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 14 Nov 07.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 4 Dec 07
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 07.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jan 08, w/atch.




                                             JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                             Panel Chair