RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-00287

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), reflecting an overall recommendation of “Promote,” that was considered by the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Reserve Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with the original PRF prepared for the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board, reflecting an overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote.”

2.	Her corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her PRF was originally prepared with a “Definitely Promote” recommendation; however, based on erroneous performance information provided to the senior rater, the PRF was revised with a “Promote” recommendation.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits statements from the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Management), her rater, and current senior rater.  In addition, she submits copies of the original PRF prepared for the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board, the PRF that was considered by the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board, and a revised PRF signed by Brig Gen O---.

The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Management) states that as a result of a review of the applicant’s record by Brig Gen O---, it has been determined that a discrepancy actually did exist in the applicant’s PRF and the magnitude of the discrepancy did justify a revised PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a Reserve officer, is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel as Assistant for Reserve Affairs, AF/XP.

She filed a similar appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); however, since a different evaluator signed the substitute PRF, they did not render a decision and recommended she resolve the discrepancy and resubmit her ERAB application.

She was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board.  The PRF considered by the board had an overall promotion recommendation of “Promote.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied.  ARPC/DPB states, in part, that allowing a later senior rater’s evaluation to override the original senior rater, after the fact, without input from the original senior rater undermines the trust and integrity placed in senior officers.  Their vast experience is relied upon to make sound, correct justments.  Without support from the original general officer, or very strong evidence that the general officer was unable to make sound, correct judgments, replacing the PRF would be incorrect.  The replacement PRF is prepared by a different officer, one not in her rating chain at the time the PRFs were required for presentation to the selection board.  In addition, the applicant has not indicated that she attempted to obtain a replacement PRF from the correct senior rater.  The documentation and support of a different PRF for the applicant was all obtained after the senior rater retired.

The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that although she was required to have received a copy of the PRF submitted to the FY00 Reserve Colonel Selection Board, she did not receive a copy until 14 days prior to the board convening.  As such, she was denied an opportunity to point out any errors of fact to the senior rater so they could be corrected prior to the board.  She immediately contacted her former supervisor, Colonel S---, who indicated that while he was unaware of the exact contents of the PRF, he was aware that her original senior rater had a meeting with the senior Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) (a member not in her chain of command) in the directorate to discuss her PRF at which time erroneous and inaccurate information regarding her duty performance was provided to the senior rater.  Because of the inflammatory nature of accusations against her, she did not feel it was wise to contract him at the time as she believed him to be biased against her, as evidenced by the fact that he did not bring the allegations to her attention at the time.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends that the PRF was originally prepared with a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation; however, based on erroneous performance information provided to the senior rater, the PRF was revised with a “Promote” recommendation.  In support of her appeal, she submits statements from current and former rating chain officials, and a revised PRF, reflecting a “DP” recommendation, prepared by her current senior rater.  However, she has not provided a statement from the senior rater of record at the time the contested PRF was prepared.  While the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acquisition and Management) states that the applicant’s potential to serve in the higher grade is clearly demonstrated on all her Officer Performance Reports, she does not indicate what discrepancies existed in the PRF and how the discrepancies justify revision.  The rater states that potentially erroneous information was provided to the senior rater; however, he does not indicate what erroneous information was provided and does not state what the facts and extenuating circumstances are that have now come to light for him to question the accuracy of the contested PRF.  Although the current senior rater states that, “these discrepancies form the foundation for material errors,” he does not indicate what the discrepancies are.  These statements are duly noted; however, they do not provide, with any specificity, sufficient detailed information concerning the circumstances surrounding the PRF.  In view of the above, and in the absence of more detailed statements, we believe the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that the PRF is in error or unjust.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2002-00287 in Executive Session on 24 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Mar 03, w/atchs.