RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02422
            INDEX CODE:  136.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered  for  the  period  17 December
2006 through 16 December 2007 be replaced with a reaccomplished  report  for
the period 17 December 2006 through  18 August  2007  and  that  he  receive
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY07B Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection  Board
(CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because there was not a change of reporting official  (CRO),  the  contested
OPR was not in his records when he met the  CY07B  Lieutenant  Colonel  CSB.
His leadership failed to capture his job performance from  the  closeout  of
the previous OPR to the date of  his  promotion  board  (11  months),  which
would normally be included in his PRF.  As a result, the board did not  have
an accurate representation of his career and he was  not  fairly  considered
for promotion.  By correcting the date on his OPR, he will be able  to  meet
a supplemental board for promotion consideration.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy  of  the  contested
OPR,  a  copy  of  the  reaccomplished  report,  AF   IMT   709,   Promotion
Recommendation, and documentation associated  with  his  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal board (ERAB) submission.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major having assumed that grade effective and with  a  date  of  rank  of  1
October 2003.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY07B (27 November 2007), Lieutenant Colonel CSB.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the ERAB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial based on AFPC/DPSIDEP's evaluation.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states that although not  required,
it appears the  intent  was  to  CRO  the  applicant  to  Major  F's  rater,
Lieutenant Colonel G, when Major F deployed; however, since the  applicant's
annual report was due  in  December  2006,  and  coincided  with  Major  F's
departure, the annual report was accomplished closing out  16 December  2006
as scheduled.  Unfortunately for the applicant however, although the  intent
was there, it appears the CRO was never updated in MILPDS.

Although Lieutenant Colonel G states that a CRO should have taken  place  in
August 2007, MILPDS shows there was no  action  until  2 September  2007  at
which time the applicant was CRO'd  to  Lieutenant  Colonel  W.   Since  the
December 2007 CRO did not take place, a CRO would have  generated  requiring
Major F to do a CRO report; however, due to his deployment those days  would
have been deducted from the number of days  supervision,  which  would  have
been less than 120 days, thereby voiding the requirement for  the  CRO  OPR.
The next report would have continued to be projected as  an  annual  report.
However,  since  Lieutenant  Colonel  W  would  not  have   had   120   days
supervision, it would have closed out on 30 December 2007, at  the  120  day
point, versus closing out on the original 16 December 2007 date.

However, since no one took any action in August or September  to  do  a  CRO
report and waited until 16 December 2007 and accomplished  the  annual  with
Lieutenant Colonel G as the  rater,  presumably  because  he  had  the  most
supervision, it appears the report was prepared as intended.   Unfortunately
for the applicant however, a December 2007 close-out date  made  the  report
ineligible for the promotion board.

Technically, since no CRO was required to begin with, the  16 December  2007
annual report should have been accomplished by Major F.   However,  since  a
CRO was accomplished on 2 September 2007  and  Major  F's  deployment  would
have voided his requirement to do a CRO,  an  annual  report  for  120  days
supervision should have been prepared closing out on  30  December  2007  by
Lieutenant Colonel W.

Unfortunately for the  applicant,  other  than  the  inaccurate  updates  in
MILPDS, there is no other evidence that Lieutenant Colonel W  was  ever  the
rater, or what role he played in the evaluation process.

It is evident that the applicant is not motivated  by  purported  injustices
in his OPRs, but by the fact that his OPR did not meet the  promotion  board
which he believes was  the  reason  for  his  promotion  nonselection.   The
purpose of the appeals process is not to improve the  applicant's  promotion
potential, but to correct  errors  or  injustices.   DPSIDEP  did  not  find
either in this case.  Regardless  of  all  the  MILPDS  inconsistencies,  it
appears that the report was originally prepared as intended; and it was  not
until the report was ineligible  for  the  board  that  the  CRO  issue  was
raised.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states because this  CRO  did  not
happen; his records that met the board were incomplete.  There  was  nothing
to show the board what he had done for the past year, which  meant  that  he
could not be fairly considered for promotion.  The work he  did  in  the  11
months prior to the board was  significant,  and  he  strongly  believes  it
would have made a difference to the  promotion  board.   Most  notably,  his
group and wing commanders selected him as the Test Aircrew of the  Year  for
the very work he did in that time frame.

There  were  numerous  inconsistencies  with  MILPDS  highlighted   in   the
advisory.  Among these, he  does  not  know  why  MILPDS  showed  Lieutenant
Colonel W as his rater on 2 September 2007.  Part  of  the  problem  may  be
that his squadron had  a  new  administrative  assistant  during  this  time
period, and he was not "standing over her shoulder" to  fix  some  of  these
errors, since she was two time zones away from him.   He  should  have  been
more diligent in correcting these MILPDS errors in his  record,  but  during
this time frame he was on a temporary  duty  (TDY)  for  85  days.   He  was
extremely busy since he was both the only  HH-60G  test  pilot  in  the  Air
Force during that time and was running the detachment for  over  six  months
as the acting commander.

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is  our  opinion  that
relief is not warranted in this case.  The applicant's contentions  and  the
comments provided by his rating chain are  duly  noted;  however,  we  agree
with the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility  that  notwithstanding
the rating  chain's  willingness  to  reaccomplish  the  report,  persuasive
evidence has  not  been  provided  showing  that  the  original  report,  as
written, was  erroneous  or  unjust.   Therefore,  we  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of either an error or injustice.  In view of  the  above  and  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
02422 in Executive Session on 18 November 2008, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 June 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 8 September 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 September 2008
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 September 2008.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 October 2008, w/atchs.




                 GREGORY A. PARKER
                 Panel Chair