RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02497
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him and reviewed by the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be substituted with a reaccomplished PRF.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His senior rater inadvertently omitted a command recommendation on his PRF.  This omission directly contributed to his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

He voiced concerns over the PRF prior to the convening of the selection board, but was told by his senior rater that he had made the PRF as strong as he was allowed to make it.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a statement from his senior rater and a new PRF.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  A review of the applicant’s last ten officer performance reports (OPRs) reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

On 17 July 2002, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied a similar appeal from the applicant to substitute his PRF for the CY01B selection board.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute his PRF with a reaccomplished PRF.  The applicant has the support of both his senior rater and Management Level Review (MLR) president (The senior rater and MLR president are the same in this instance).  However, in order to change Section IV of a PRF, the senior rater must demonstrate that 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.  The applicant has not presented evidence of a material error.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  They concur with the findings and recommendation of AFPC/DPPPEB.  Since it is recommended that the applicant not be allowed to substitute his PRF, an SSB would, therefore, not be appropriate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the applicant on 8 November 2002 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  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 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 02-02497 in Executive Session on 17 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 24 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 Nov 02.

                                   

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

	    After careful review of all the circumstances of this case, I disagree with the AFBCMR panel’s decision to deny the applicant’s requests to substitute the promotion recommendation form (PRF) prepared on him for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board with a new PRF containing a recommendation for command and that he be considered for promotion by special selection board (SSB) for that same board.

	    The CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board did not select the applicant for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  He believes that an inadvertent omission of a command recommendation on his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) directly contributed to his nonselection for promotion.

	    The AFBCMR based their decision to deny this case on the fact that the senior rater had the opportunity to include the recommendation for command in the original version of the PRF.  In taking this view, it would appear that they do not accept the statement of the senior rater that he made a mistake or do not believe that he should be allowed to correct it.  In my view, I believe the applicant’s record supports the position that the senior rater indeed did make a mistake.  I note that the three Officer Performance Reports prepared on him prior to the PRF all include a recommendation for command.  Unfortunately, there is no way to determine with any degree of certainty if the omission of a command recommendation adversely impacted the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  However, the senior rater’s statement confirms that the PRF he submitted was not what he had intended.  

	    Since the usual standard for approving these types of cases is the unequivocal support of the applicant’s rating chain, I believe the element of doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.  Therefore, it is my decision that the PRF prepared on the applicant for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be substituted with a revised PRF and that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by SSB with the revised PRF.