RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01257
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  15 April
2002 to 14 April 2003 be replaced with a reaccomplished report.

2.  He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  promotion  to
the grade of colonel by the  Calendar  Year  2003  (CY03)  Colonel  Central
Selection Board (CSB).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an administrative error, his duties as commander were  omitted  from
his  OPR.   His  OPR  does  not   document   significant   combat   related
responsibilities and experiences as a commander during the  rating  period.
This exclusion was  unintentional  by  his  rater  and  was  caused  by  an
administrative oversight by the rater’s staff.  His rater violated AFI  36-
2406, Correcting Officers and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  by  providing
blank, pre-signed OPRs for home  station  use.   This  oversight  may  have
impacted  his  consideration  for  promotion  and  masked  important  facts
impacting assignments  and  professional  development  opportunities.   His
rater and additional rater signed a new OPR.  He submitted a request to the
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) but it was denied.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement,  copies
of  memorandums,  AF  Form  948,  Application  for  Correction/Removal   of
Evaluation Reports with attachments; summary of changes,  copies  of  award
citations and a Single Unit Retrieval Format (SURF).

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects  the
applicant is currently serving on active duty in the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a  date  of  rank  of
1 March 1999.

The applicant has five nonselections to the grade of colonel by the  CY03B,
CY04A, CY05A, CY06A and CY07A CSBs which convened on  27  October  2003,  6
December  2004,  12  September  2005,  15  May  2006,  and  9  April   2007
respectively.

His total active federal commissioned service  date  (TAFCSD)  is  4 August
1982.

He filed a similar request through the ERAB and his request was denied on
7 May 2004.  The ERAB was not convinced that the report was unjust or
wrong.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request to replace the contested OPR.
 DPSIDEP states it has become increasingly common to  find  evaluators  who
are willing to reaccomplish reports on former subordinates long  after  the
closeout date.  DPSIDEP opines that despite experiencing a high  deployment
tempo during this period, the opportunity  to  send  a  letter  before  the
promotion board was available.   The  appeal  process  does  not  exist  to
enhance an applicant's promotion potential and this appeal  appears  to  be
exactly that.  The  information  he  is  requesting  to  be  added  in  the
evaluation was known and available to the evaluators at the time the report
was written,  the  information  is  not  mandatory  for  inclusion  in  the
evaluation, and most importantly, through due diligence and by  maintaining
reasonably careful records, he should have discovered and  taken  steps  to
correct the omissions prior to the promotion board, not  five  years  after
the fact.  Furthermore, the report in his records makes  reference  to  his
being  a  deployed  commander.   The  requested  changes  only  relate  the
information more eloquently and with  stronger  phrases.   DPSIDEP  is  not
convinced the contested evaluation is erroneous or unjust.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of his request for SSB  consideration.   DPSOO
states their evaluation of this  request  requires  them  to  rely  on  the
opinions of other Air Force experts.  As such, DPSOO has reviewed DPSIDEP’s
advisory  and  based  on  their  recommendation  to  deny  his  request  to
substitute  the  OPR,  they  recommend  denial  of  his  request  for   SSB
consideration.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating there were critical flaws with the  DPSIDEP
analysis.  The assertion that the original OPR makes reference to his being
a deployed  commander  is  incorrect.   The  advisory  states  he  had  the
opportunity to review and correct his evaluation  prior  to  the  promotion
board, this is unreasonable and overlooks the nature of the  administrative
errors regarding the OPR.  It also states his rater knew about his deployed
commander experience and was not  required  to  comment  on  it.   This  is
misleading and the OPR draft his rater reviewed was not  the  version  that
actually received his signature.  To say his request is merely  to  enhance
his promotion potential and should be denied because there was no error  or
injustice overlooks the facts of this request.

His complete response is attached 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 an  error  or  injustice.   We  took  careful  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.  Additionally, we are not persuaded  by  the  evidence  provided
that the contested report was prepared in violation of  the  governing  Air
Force Instructions.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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-2008-
01257 in Executive Session on 24 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms.  B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Mr.  Garry G. Sauner, Member
                 Ms.  Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 March 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 6 May 2008.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 19 May 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 June 2008.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 July 2008.



                                   BJ WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair