RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03562
INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: NONE

	XXXXXXXXXXXXX				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His P0500A promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect a $166 million program versus an $80 million program; his completion of the USAF F-15E Instructor Upgrade Course be documented on an AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, versus AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet; and his officer performance report (OPR) for the period 3 May 1998 - 2 May 1999, be corrected to include his rater’s intended senior service school (SSS) recommendation; and he be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater unintentionally left out a recommendation on his OPR closing 2 May 1999.  His initial qualification training should have been documented on an AF Form 475 instead of an AF Form 77.  The mistake was made due to confusion in the training facility.  An incorrect dollar amount for the flying-hour program he solely managed was used on his PRF for the CY00A (28 Nov 00) (P0500A) Central Lt Col Selection Board.  

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; his letter to the CY00/P0500A Central Lt Col Selection Board; a supporting statement from his rater; a spreadsheet identifying value of his flying-hour program; the contested OPR, a supporting letter from his commander; the contested PRF; a corrected copy of his PRF; his contested AF Form 77; a corrected AF Form 475; additional training reports/supplemental evaluation sheets; and e-mail documentation researching his case.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system (MilPDS), the applicant is a rated officer who was appointed a Second Lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 11 May 1985, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 8 August 1985.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 1 July 1993 and was progressively promoted to the grade of Major (0-4) with a date of rank of 1 April 1997 and is still currently serving on active duty.

The applicant has two non-selections to the grade of Lt Col by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) (P0500A) and the CY01B (5 Nov 01) (P0501B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings and training reports commencing with the report closing 30 October 1992:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION

	30 Oct 92					Meets Standards (MS)
	 9 Jun 93						  MS
	 9 Jun 94						  MS
	14 Oct 94						  MS
*	 5 Jan 95					Supplemental Evaluation Sheet
	31 Jul 95						  MS
	15 Jun 96						  MS
	15 Jun 97 (Major)				  MS
	 2 May 98						  MS
*	 2 May 99						  MS
	 2 May 00						  MS
	29 Jun 01						  MS
	20 Feb 02					Training Report (TR)
	19 Jul 02						  MS

* Contested reports.

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered and disapproved the applicant’s request to substitute corrected copies of his OPR closing out 2 May 1999, his TR closing 5 January 1995, and the P0500A PRF.  The ERAB also did not approve the applicant’s request that his records meet an SSB for promotion consideration.  The applicant’s MPF was notified of the above on 13 September 2002.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE cites Air Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  It is DPPPE’s opinion that there are no errors or injustices cited in the applicant’s OPR closing 2 May 1999.  Additionally, DPPPE states the applicant’s completion of the USAF F-15E Instructor Upgrade Course was properly documented on an Air Force Form 77.  Finally, DPPPE states the applicant had more than ample time to request a correction to his P0500A PRF prior to the Central Selection Board (CSB) before it became a matter of record.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO concurs with the findings from DPPPE and has nothing further to add.  DPPPO states since the DPPPE advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims he is not receiving fair consideration.  He vehemently denies any attempt to “cloud the facts” as the DPPPE advisory indicates.  The applicant states he brought the PRF discrepancy to the attention of his supervisors and attempted to get it corrected; however, with the operations tempo and preparation to deploy to a combat zone at the time, he was unable to get the changes made in time.  The applicant’s review is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  The applicant asserts that he should be afforded an SSB for promotion by the CY 2000A central lieutenant colonel selection board based on the correction of the dollar figure for a program he managed as cited on the PRF prepared for that board, the addition of a PME recommendation to his OPR closing 2 May 1999, and the substitution of a Education/Training Report in place of a Supplemental Evaluation Sheet to document his completion of a 90-day upgrade training course.  The applicant’s requests are not favorably considered based on the following discussion.

	a.  The applicant asserts that his upgrade should have been documented on an AF Form 475 rather than an AF Form 77.  The Air Force office of primary responsibility has indicated that the AF Form 77 was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the governing regulation in effect at the time he completed the training.  The applicant has provided no documentary evidence that would lead us to believe the contrary was the case.  In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis to substitute the AF Form 475 in place of the AF Form 77, as the applicant has requested.

	b.  We have noted the statement of support by the rater of the applicant’s OPR closing 2 May 1999 and do not find it sufficiently persuasive to warrant approval of the addition of a PME recommendation to the contested report.  In this regard, we note that there is inconsistent support for Senior Service School on the reports written prior and subsequent to the contested report.  The rater’s section on the contested report is completely filled in and this officer did not indicate in his statement that he was unaware that the applicant was eligible for a PME recommendation at the time the report was prepared, but states that such a recommendation was “overlooked.”  After reviewing the rater’s statement, we are left with the impression that his proposal to change the OPR is nothing more than a well-meaning attempt to improve the applicant’s promotion opportunities, which is, in our view, an inappropriate basis on which to correct the record.

	c.  As to the applicant’s request that the dollar figure cited in Section III, Item 2 of the contested PRF be changed, even though it appears that the value of this program represented on the contested report is erroneous, the Board majority does not believe that the error caused his record to be so erroneous or misleading that the CY 2000A was unable to make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability in comparison to his peers.  Therefore, the Board majority is of the opinion that, for all intents and purposes, this error was harmless to the applicant’s promotion opportunity and declines to favorably consider this request.

	d.  Accordingly, in view of the above, the applicant’s request for consideration by an SSB for the CY 200A central lieutenant colonel selection board is also not favorably considered.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

Ms.   and Mr.   voted to deny the application.  Ms.   voted to grant the applicant’s request for a correction to the dollar figure in Section II, Item 2 of the contested PRF and to deny the remainder of the applicant’s requests but elected not to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC‑2002-03562 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 1 Nov 02 w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 22 Jan 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 Jan 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 03.
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Rebuttal w/atchs, undated.

                                  

AFBCMR BC-2002-03562

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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.  

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.