RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00645
		INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The “Narrative Only” Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1992B (CY92B) Below-The-Promotion Zone (BPZ) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be removed and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY92B BPZ Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The governing Air Force Instruction (AFI) requires that “Narrative Only” PRFs be completed 30 days prior to departure for a school tour.  He departed from Travis Air Force Base (AFB) for England on 17 Dec 91.  The original PRF stated that he was “unwilling to upgrade to aircraft commander.”  That was incorrect.  He completed aircraft commander upgrade in Sep 91.  It was also incorrect because it stated that he “applied for Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI).”  There was no VSI program in 1991 due to the Gulf War.  The program was not established until 1992.  He could not have applied in 1991.  The senior rater agreed that the PRF was incorrect.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of the original and reaccomplished PRF, a personal statement, statements from his former additional rater and senior rater, documentation pertaining to his aircrew qualification, the VSI program, his appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug 00.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 28 May 80.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1990 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 1 Apr 90			Meets Standards
	 7 Oct 90			Meets Standards
  #   7 Oct 91			Meets Standards
	 3 Dec 92			Training Report
	 3 Dec 93			Meets Standards
	20 Jul 94			Meets Standards
	20 Jul 95			Meets Standards
	24 Jun 96			Meets Standards
	19 May 97			Meets Standards
	 1 Jun 98			Training Report
	 1 Jun 99			Meets Standards
	22 May 00			Meets Standards
	22 May 01			Meets Standards

# Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY92B BPZ Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial of the applicant’s request.  They noted that the applicant’s Narrative Only PRF stated he was “unwilling to upgrade to aircraft commander” and that he “recently applied for VSI.”  AFPC/DPPPE further noted that the applicant provided documentation for his upgrade to aircraft commander.  He also provided two statements from his squadron commander who insisted that while the applicant did ultimately accept training for upgrade, he was originally resistant and desired to separate.  AFPC/DPPPE believes the AFBCMR must therefore judge between the two statements, as the fact that the applicant completed the training does not disprove that at some point he showed a reluctance to accept that responsibility.  According to AFPC/DPPPE, raters must be able to consider reluctance to accept increased responsibility in determination of evaluations ratings.  If the squadron commander’s recollections are accurate, his recommendation to the senior rater was legitimate, making the senior rater’s statements accurate.

AFPC/DPPPE noted the documentation provided by the applicant suggesting VSI was not implemented until 1992, after his permanent change of station (PCS) to England.  According to AFPC/DPPPE, VSI was implemented in Fiscal Year 1992 (FY92), making it available on 1 Oct 91, before the applicant was recommended for, or departed to his next assignment.  The squadron commander adequately refuted the applicant’s allegation, stating, in essence, while the applicant might not have ultimately followed through with his effort to apply for VSI, the fact remains he desired to separate and communicated such to his commander.  

In AFPC/DPPPE’s view, the PRF recommendation was accomplished appropriately as a reflection of whether the applicant was prepared at the time for the responsibilities and challenges that accompany promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel four years below the zone.  The PRF was not a stain on his records, as alleged by the applicant, since it was only used for the CY92B board.  It is not now an official part of his records, and will not be used at any future date to determine his suitability for promotion or assignment.  Rather, the PRF is a reflection of the senior rater’s opinion of whether the applicant was ready at that time for promotion.  

AFPC/DPPPE noted that while the applicant did not specifically mention it, his earlier efforts through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) included his desire to have his duty history altered and have his duty title for the PRF in question reflect, “C-5 Aircraft Commander.”  AFPC/DPPPE indicated that despite three denials of this request and direction by the ERAB to the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to correct the applicant’s duty history to reflect the proper duty title, somehow, the duty history has been altered.  All appropriate documentation available at or near the time the applicant’s Narrative Only PRF was written validates he was not a C-5 Aircraft Commander.  His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC), his medal citation, and his OPR all list him as C-5 Pilot.  In subsequent ERAB efforts, the applicant attempted to steer a solution to this issue by proving he was “qualified” for the duty title.  However, qualification for a duty title does not equate to holding the position which would allow use of it on either an evaluation form or a duty history.  AFPC/DPPPE stated that they could find no evidence that the applicant’s duty history change was approved through a formal process in accordance with Air Force instructions.

According to AFPC/DPPPE, all evaluations documents are considered by the Air Force to be accurate as written at the time they are rendered.  In their view, changing those documents requires proof from the applicant that they were inaccurate or unjust.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  AFPC/DPPPO indicated that they concur with the advisory opinion from AFPC/DPPPE and can add nothing further.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and furnished a response which is attached 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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed, including the statements from his former additional rater and senior rater, and his contentions concerning the contested PRF were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility concerning this issue.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the contested PRF was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s promotion potential at the time it was prepared, we adopt the Air Force rationale and conclude that no basis exists 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00645 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 02 and 13 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jun 02
    Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02 and 19 Jul 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 2 Aug 02.