RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01397

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, indicating a “Promote” recommendation, be replaced with a re-accomplished PRF containing a change to the last line of Section IV, and indicating an Overall Recommendation of "Definitely Promote” (DP) in Section IX.

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

An error was found in his record that changed his duty history.  When he informed the senior rater of the error, the senior rater decided that he should have been awarded a “Definitely Promote” recommendation.  The senior rater then informed the Management Level Review (MLR) president and he concurred with the senior rater’s assessment.  Both recommended a correction to his record.  Once the recommendation is changed, the current last line no longer makes any sense.  The senior rater prepared a new line to correct the narrative section of the report as well.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, statements from the senior rater, MLR president and -- Operations Group commander, and copies of the original and re-accomplished PRFs, and his corrected Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 Nov 90.

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 major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Jan 96.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 19 Jul 83.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1990 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	30 Nov 90			Meets Standards
	30 Nov 91			Meets Standards
	 6 Jul 92			Meets Standards
	13 Apr 93			Meets Standards
	13 Apr 94			Meets Standards
	 4 Mar 95			Meets Standards
	 4 Mar 96			Meets Standards
	14 May 97			Meets Standards
	 9 Mar 98			Meets Standards
  #   9 Mar 99			Meets Standards
 ##   9 Mar 00			Meets Standards
###   9 Mar 01			Meets Standards

  # Top Report at the time he was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Board.

 ## Top Report at the time he was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Board.

### Top Report at the time he was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommended denial noting that the applicant provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and MLR president.  According to AFPC/DPPPEB, to change the PRF, the senior rater is required to 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 all instances, the requested change to the PRF must be related to a documented error.  Appeals to rewrite a PRF and change the overall rating to include previously available or documented accomplishments should not be approved.  In addition, officers are required to demonstrate reasonable diligence in correcting their record prior to the central selection board.  This did not occur in regard to the applicant’s 30 Nov 90 OPR prior to the central selection board.

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

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial indicating that they concur with the AFPC/DPPPEB advisory and have nothing further to add.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant provided a response indicating that he did monitor his record with due diligence.  He checked it numerous times, his commander checked it, and he even traveled to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) for a face-to-face review with a personnel specialist.  No one found the error until after his primary promotion board.  After his record was corrected, both the senior rater and MLR president recommended changing his PRF recommendation to a “Definitely Promote.”  Clearly, the error in his record was “material” and had a significant adverse impact.

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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation submitted in support of his appeal, including the statements from the senior rater and MLR president, sufficient to persuade us that corrective action is warranted in this case.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant’s duty title on his OPR closing 30 Nov 90 was in error and, therefore, was changed to reflect he was an Instructor/Evaluator Navigator rather than an Instructor Navigator.  The applicant contends this error proved pivotal in his senior rater’s promotion recommendation decision not to give him a “DP.”  The senior rater supports his assertion indicating that competition was very keen and he had to make a decision between several very fine officers.  According to the senior rater, the missing evaluator hallmark was the “tie breaker” and he gave another officer the DP.  The MLR president concurred with the senior rater’s assessment and recommendation.  However, the comments from the senior rater and MLR president have not shown to our satisfaction that had the duty title on the OPR closing 30 Nov 90 reflected Instructor/Evaluator Navigator versus Instructor Navigator, the applicant would have definitely received a “DP” over the other individuals who competed for and were awarded “DPs.”  Furthermore, we note that prior to the correction of the duty title on the OPR closing 30 Nov 90, the report indicated in Section IV that he administered evaluations, and reflected in Section VI that he was not only an instructor, but also an evaluator.  Therefore, notwithstanding the applicant’s assertions concerning this matter, we agree with AFPC/DPPPEB that the information was available for consideration.  It is our opinion that the statements from the senior rater and MLR president represent their retrospective judgments of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential which, in our view, do not provide an appropriate basis to find that the contested PRF was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s promotion potential at the time it was prepared.  In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient 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 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 02-01397 in Executive Session on 3 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Apr 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 14 Aug 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 4 Nov 02, w/atchs.

                                   

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM:	SAF/MR
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Case of , AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01397
I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the AFBCMR panel that the applicant’s requests that the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a re-accomplished PRF, and that he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel should be denied.
The applicant’s duty title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 Nov 90 was in error in that it reflected he was an Instructor Navigator rather than an Instructor/Evaluator Navigator.  The applicant believes that the error impacted his senior rater’s decision not to give him a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation.  The senior rater explains the importance of the missing designation of Evaluator/Navigator, stating that selection for evaluator duties sends a distinct message of “trust” and clearly shows the member is an expert in the major weapon system.  The senior rater advises that its omission sends a negative message that adversely impacts promotion consideration and that it was the “tie breaker” which caused him to give the DP to another officer.  The Management Level Review (MLR) president advises that he, too, has reviewed the corrected record and agrees with the senior rater’s assessment and recommendation.  The AFBCMR noted the applicant’s OPR reflected that he administered evaluations and that he was not only an instructor but was also an evaluator.  Consequently, the AFBCMR did not find the statements from the senior rater and the MLR president sufficiently compelling to recommend relief.  As noted earlier, I disagree.
Having no basis to question the integrity of the senior rater and the MLR president, who unequivocally states, in essence, that the erroneous duty title in the applicant’s OPR was the sole and exclusive reason for his failure to receive a DP promotion recommendation for the CY99B Central Lt Colonel Selection Board, equity dictates that the applicant’s request be granted.  Accordingly, it is my decision that the PRF prepared for consideration by the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a re-accomplished PRF, and that the applicant be given SSB consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

AFBCMR BC-2002-01397

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to , be corrected to show that:

		a.  The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, indicating a "Promote" recommendation, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		b.  The attached re-accomplished PRF, indicating a "Definitely Promote" recommendation, be inserted in his officer selection folder.

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the re-accomplished PRF.

Attachment:
AF Form 709