RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01376 (Case 2)
		INDEX CODE:  111.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY99B (P0599B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be replaced with the reaccomplished PRF provided.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the P0599B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with the new PRF.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His senior rater failed to include a recommendation for Professional Military Education (PME); therefore, the PRF was inaccurate, incomplete and prejudiced.

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of the original PRF, the revised PRF and a statement from the senior rater, with the concurrence of the Management Level Review (MLR) president.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 20 Jul 84.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and date of rank of 6 Oct 92.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		     18 Mar 93	Meets Standards (MS)
		     14 Feb 94	    MS
		     14 Feb 95	    MS
		     14 Feb 96	    MS
		#    14 Feb 97	    MS
		##    9 Oct 97	    MS
		###   2 Jun 98	    MS
		####  2 Jun 99	    MS
		##### 2 Jun 00	    MS
		######2 Jun 01	    MS

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY97B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 2 Jun 97.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY97E Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 8 Dec 97.

### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99.

#### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 30 Nov 99.

##### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 28 Nov 00.

###### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 5 Nov 01.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 17 Sep 01.

Information maintained in the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals that the applicant currently has an established date of separation (DOS) of 31 Jul 04.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEB recommends the application be denied.  DPPPEB stated that to change Section IV of the contested PRF, the senior rater must demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF, a material error in the record of performance that substantially impacted the content of the PRF, or a material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted.  In addition, the applicant must demonstrate he took corrective action upon receipt and review of his PRF prior to the central selection board.  DPPPEB indicated that these requirements were not met.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO concurs with the HQ AFPC/DPPPEB advisory and has nothing further to add.  Since HQ AFPC/DPPPEB recommends denial, Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration is not warranted.  The HQ AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the basis for his request is twofold.  First, the PRF submitted to the promotion board contained an incorrect statement of fact by citing the wrong military operation to describe his efforts in northern Iraq.  The second correction is the omission of a PME recommendation.  He left his assignment at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, under permanent change of station orders prior to receiving the PRF, which was forwarded to his new duty station at Lackland AFB, TX, shortly before the board convened.  His effort to raise the issue for a PME recommendation with the senior rater and MLR president was eventually successful, but could not have been accomplished in the brief period of time prior to the selection board.  The applicant’s complete response 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 injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, as was the senior rater’s supporting statement, with the concurrence of the MLR President.  However, we are not persuaded that the statements support voiding and replacing the contested PRF.  We note that the senior rater claims the omission of the Professional Military Education (PME) recommendation was an oversight.  Due to the level of importance placed on PRFs and considering the scrutiny these reports receive, we do not find this statement, alone, sufficiently compelling to warrant substitution of the report.  Rather, it appears to us that this statement is a well-meaning, after-the-fact attempt to enhance the applicant’s promotability.  Such motivations are not sufficient to support findings that the report itself, with the exception of the issue discussed below, was so erroneous or unjust at the time it was prepared that it should now be declared void.  As to the incorrect statement of fact on the contested PRF, we note that the applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 14 Feb 96 and 9 Oct 97, were corrected by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in a previous action and that the applicant received SSB consideration based on this correction.  Although the incorrect statement was on the contested PRF, the applicant was provided SSB consideration, with a corrected record.  Since selection boards evaluate the entire officer record, the correct information was available for review on the revised OPRs when he was considered for promotion by an SSB on 24 May 99 and 2 Aug 99, which convened prior to the CY99B (30 Nov 99) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  Therefore, we believe the applicant was afforded appropriate relief concerning the erroneous statement and his records were given fair and equitable consideration.  In view of the above, and in the absence of more persuasive evidence, 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 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 27 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 13 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 9 Jul 02.