RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03649
		INDEX CODE 111.01  131.01
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 24 Jun 95 through 23 Jun 96 be corrected to reflect professional military education (PME) recommendation for Senior Service School (SSS), rather than Intermediate Service School (ISS), his nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside, and he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for all subsequent promotion boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) corrected his OPR closing 23 Jun 98 but not the contested report.  The problem with PME levels arose when AFPC changed its PME selection policy in 1992. Initially under the Officer Evaluation System (OES), PME selections were decoupled from promotion selections. However, beginning in 1992, PME selections were recoupled with promotion boards, i.e. for ISS, the top 20% of the majors could be nominated for resident ISS. This was later amended, allowing no more than 3% of officers to be nominated for resident PME “outside” the “pool of candidates” identified at the consolidated promotion/PME boards. The ERAB’s decision to amend his 1998 OPR confirms that SSS is appropriate for majors like himself who were not initially identified for ISS in conjunction with promotion.

The rater and additional rater of the contested OPR provide statements contending that the correct PME level on the report should have been for SSS rather than ISS. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was promoted to major with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 95. According to HQ AFPC/DPPE (see Exhibit C), AFPC/DPAPE verified the applicant was eligible to meet ISS boards in 1995, 1996 and 1997. 

The applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01), and CY02B (12 Nov 02) selection boards.  The Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the CY99A, CY99B and CY00A selection boards include recommendations for SSS. All the PRFs have overall recommendations of “Promote.” He was selected for continuation on 10 Apr 00.

The applicant’s OPR profile follows: 

		PERIOD ENDING		EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
		    23 Jun 94		   Meets Standards
		    23 Jun 95		   Meets Standards
		*   23 Jun 96		   Meets Standards
		    23 Jun 97		   Meets Standards
		#   23 Jun 98		   Meets Standards
		     9 Feb 99		   Meets Standards
		##  17 Sep 99		   Meets Standards
		###  1 Mar 00		   Meets Standards
		#### 1 Mar 01		   Meets Standards
		#####1 Mar 02		   Meets Standards

*Contested Report
# Top report for CY99A board
## Top report for CY99B board
### Top report for CY00A board
#### Top report for CY01B board
##### Top report for CY02B board

The OPRs closing 23 Jun 94, 95 and 96 (contested) contain PME recommendations for ISS.  The OPR closing 23 Jun 97 recommends SSS in residence. The OPR closing 23 Jun 98 originally recommended ISS. The reports closing 9 Feb 99, 17 Sep 99, and 1 Mar 00 reflect recommendations for SSS. 

The applicant filed a similar appeal regarding the contested OPR and the report closing 23 Jun 98. On 25 Jul 02, the ERAB approved changing the 23 Jun 98 OPR to read “SSS” rather than “ISS” but denied amending the 23 Jun 96 report, indicating the applicant was not eligible for SSS at that time.  However, the ERAB did not believe the change to the 23 Jun 98 OPR significant enough to warrant SSB consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE indicates the applicant contends he was ineligible to attend ISS (in residence) simply because he was neither selected as a candidate nor as a non-candidate. The applicant feels that he did not have a “real” chance to be selected as a non-candidate for consideration to attend ISS in residence.  Just because the numbers did not favor his selection as a non-candidate, does not render him ineligible.  The applicant’s senior rater could have nominated him (if deserving) as a non-candidate to attend ISS in residence during the time the applicant’s OPR closed out; therefore, it is clear that the applicant was indeed eligible for ISS when his 23 Jun 96 OPR closed out.  The appropriate PME recommendation for his 23 Jun 96 OPR was ISS since he had not completed ISS and was still eligible to attend (in-residence). Any change to the PME recommendation would cause the contested OPR to be inaccurate. Denial is recommended. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing further to add to DPPPE’s advisory. Since that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts the ERAB ordered correction of [the 23 Jun 98 OPR] because of the wrong level of PME recommended just as on his 23 Jun 96 report. This effectively confirms his record was flawed when it met the CY99A board and entitles him to SSB consideration. The applicant contends AFPC’s own guidance states that SSS is the appropriate PME to recommend for a major. Further, AFPC’s own briefing confirms there are apparently many PME recommendation errors on OPRs as selection board members have noted this as a detractor. His former senior rater has stated he intended to recommend him for SSS. Regardless of what is decided on the contested 23 Jun 96 report, the 23 Jun 98 OPR amended by the ERAB should warrant SSB consideration.

The 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 to warrant altering the 23 Jun 96 OPR to reflect a PME recommendation of “SSS” rather than “ISS” and granting SSB consideration for the CY99A selection board. The applicant’s contentions and the supporting statements were noted. However, as pointed out by the Air Force, the applicant was eligible to meet the 1995, 1996, 1997 ISS boards. Further, merely because the numbers did not favor his selection as a non-candidate to attend ISS in residence did not render him ineligible. The senior rater, if so inclined, could have nominated him as a non-candidate to attend ISS in residence during the time the contested OPR closed out. Finally, the 23 Jul 96 report appears to have the correct PME recommendation because the applicant had not completed ISS, was still eligible to attend ISS in residence, and was not eligible for SSS at that time. In our view, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

4.	We also noted in his rebuttal the applicant requested SSB consideration for the CY99A selection board on the basis of the administratively amended 23 Jun 98 OPR. However, we agree with the ERAB’s determination that the change in the PME recommendation from “ISS” to “SSS” is not significant enough to warrant SSB review. Further, while the applicant appears to believe the original “ISS” recommendation was the cause of his nonselection, he has not provided persuasive evidence that his record was so inaccurate or misleading that the duly constituted selection board was unable to reach a reasonable decision concerning his promotability in relationship to his peers, particularly since this information was reflected on the PRF prepared for the board’s review. 

5.	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 15 May 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
			Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
			Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03649 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Dec 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, undated, received 4 Mar 03,
                   w/atchs.