RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01083
				INDEX CODE: 131.01

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Calendar Year 1998 (CY98) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Major Selection Board.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The PRF for the CY98 Major Central Selection Board was not a complete assessment of his promotion potential.  The CY98 Major Central Selection Board was scheduled for 6 April 1998.  Colonel XXXXXXXXXX, now his new senior rater, signed his original PRF on 5 February 1998 (PRF cut off date).  The PRF met the ACC Management Level Review (MLR) Board on 18 February 1998.  On 20 February 1998, HQ ACC/IG sent the XXth Group Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI) Administrative Special Instructions (SPINS).  In the SPINS the ACC/IG laid responsibilities on him that normally are done at the MAJCOM level.  He had to write the Master Scenario Event List (MSEL) draft, the Air Tasking Order (ATO), the Operations SPINS, coordinated intelligence, target presentations and led all the support requirements.  Colonel XXXXXXXXXX relieved Col XXXXXXXXXX from command on 12 March 1998, his third senior rater in four months.  The ORI started on 20 March and ended 28 March 1998.  The group earned an "Excellent" rating and was above Command average on every rated area, no repeat findings, 19 Superior Performance teams and one Command Best Practice.  He had an Officer Performance Report (OPR) closed out during the ORI documenting all of his efforts and although it was filed within the 60-day suspense, it did not make it into his selection folder prior to the board convening.  The Central Selection Board met one week after the ORI ended.  His record met the board with an incomplete promotion assessment and no documentation of the most important achievement of his career.

Applicant submits a statement from Senior rater, stating at the time he wrote the applicant's PRF for the 0498B Line AF Major's Central Selection Board and ACCs MLR Board, he did not have all the information needed for a complete assessment of his promotion potential.  To rectify this unfortunate omission, he supports his appeal of the PRF and submits a new one with a more complete assessment.

Applicant also submits another letter from the ACC MLRB President stating he has reviewed the PRF change requested by the applicant and fully supports the request for a corrected PRF.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY98B Selection Board.  However, he was selected by the CY99A Major Selection Board and promoted to the grade of major effective 1 August 1999.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXXX, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed the application and states that it is obvious that the senior rater did not have the opportunity to include the ORI results prior to the MLR.  However, he did have the opportunity to correct the PRF before the Central Selection Board (CSB) which convened on 6 April 1998.  The applicant does not provide evidence that an effort was made to correct the PRF prior to the CSB.  He only shows a willingness by his evaluators to change the report after the fact.  This is only valid if there is clear evidence that an error or injustice was committed.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice in this case.  The applicant also could have written to the CSB stating the results of the ORI, which was not done.  There is no evidence that anyone made an attempt to correct the PRF or make the information available to the CSB.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The XXXXX, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the applicant contends the results from the ORI, which was completed on 28 March 1998, should have been included in his P0498B PRF.  As stated in his own brief as well as HQ AFPC/DPPPE's advisory, the PRF cutoff date was 5 February 1998 and the MLR was conducted on 18 February 1998.  It is clear the results of the ORI would not have been available at the time the PRF was prepared because the results did not exist at the time.  At this point, two things could have happened.  First, the senior rater could have made an attempt prior to the convening of the board to reaccomplish the PRF to include the ORI results; however, no evidence is submitted to prove that he tried do so.  Second, the applicant could have written to the board president as he was entitled to do, but he elected not to exercise this vital entitlement.  They contend that there are many of the applicant's contemporaries who also had significant achievements occur subsequent to the PRF cutoff date that they would also like to have included in their PRFs, but were not.  To grant the applicant's request and accept the reaccomplished PRF would be unfair to his peers who fell into similar situations.  The applicant would have the AFBCMR believe that due to a turnover in senior raters, his record met the board with an "incomplete promotion assessment."  They note the applicant states the senior rater (who signed the PRF) temporarily took command of the 85th Group until the arrival of the incoming commander.  Up to that time, the senior rater was the Vice Commander of the XXth Group and his supervisor.  Once the new commander arrived, the senior rater resumed his duties as vice commander.  They are not sure why the applicant brought this point up as it has no bearing on whether or not the interim commander (senior rater) was the appropriate individual to sign the PRF.  It appears the applicant would have the AFBCMR believe he has been  victimized in the promotion process when, in fact, he and his evaluators were afforded the opportunity prior to the board to either include the ORI achievement in his PRF or in a letter to the board president 
written by the applicant.  Neither of these actions happened.  Based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial due to lack of merit.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 August 1999, for review and response within 30 days.  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 probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested PRF should be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.  Although the applicant has submitted statements from the senior rater and MLEB President, these statements, in our opinion, do not substantiate that the PRF rendered in 1998 was in error or unjust.  As noted by the Air Force, the senior rater did have the opportunity to reaccomplish the contested PRF prior to the convening of the board.  It is also noted that the applicant could have written to the board president stating the results of the XXth Group Operational Readiness Inspection (ORI), which was not done.  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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 3 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 99, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 1 Jul 99.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Jul 99.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Aug 99.