ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00472
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		COUNSEL:  XXXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A lieutenant colonel board.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In a previous submission the applicant requested the following corrections be made to his military records: 

1.  His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing on 17 Feb 00, 17 Feb 01, and 17 Feb 02, be removed from his records and replaced with reaccomplished OPRs closing 20 Oct 99, 20 Oct 00, and 20 Oct 01.

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB).

4.  His assignment history be changed to reflect the correct duty title.

Applicant contended that his time and performance as the 89th Air Wing, Chief, Protocol Operations, was not adequately documented.  As a result of data reflected in the Personnel Data System, his supervisor had 116 days of supervision resulting in a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) that was prepared before his departure.  The omission of a permanent change-of-station (PCS) OPR had the effect of creating a questionable portrait of his performance.  In addition, he contended his PCS decoration was not fully processed for over a year.  These two issues, an LOE and no PCS decoration along with errors in his duty history left his new commander with the impression that his previous performance was less than stellar.  

The Board recommended the contested OPRs be declared void, the reports provided by the applicant, be inserted in their place, and any subsequently prepared reports be adjusted accordingly.  The Board did not agree with the applicant that his PRF should be replaced with a corrected PRF and noted that his duty history has been corrected in the Military Personnel Data System.  

The Board advised the applicant that their denial of his request to replace the PRF does not preclude him from seeking correction through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) process.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s requests and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.

The applicant subsequently submitted an application to the ERAB.  Based on the fact that the ERAB is subordinate to the Board and no "substantial" new evidence was provided by the applicant, the ERAB determined the Board's ruling should stand and returned his request without action.

In his most recent submission, counsel contends the applicant again obtained the Management Level Review (MLR) President's consent and requested correction of his record through the ERAB.  However, the ERAB denied his request based on the fact that the Board had determined that the relief was not warranted.  The ERAB stated to the applicant that they could not understand why the Board did not recommend correcting his record based on the evidence submitted.  In his first application he did not allege the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) was not processed in a timely manner, but the processing of the MSM along with the erroneous OPR and incorrect duty history caused the issuance of a PRF that was an inaccurate and unjust reflection of his military performance.  The processing of the MSM was not delayed because the originating officer consulted Air Force regulations and decided he had 2 years within to act, but because a secretary buried the award in her desk after it was initiated in an expeditious manner.  If the Board does not consider the delay in processing the MSM to be a source of an error or injustice, it must recognize that the erroneous OPR materially altered his senior rater's perception of his performance history.  

In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief, copies of a previously submitted document, and memorandums provided by his current MLR President and the MLR Panel Recorder.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the additional evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the requested change to the contested PRF is justified.  The statements from the senior rater and MLB board president were previously considered.  These statements, in our opinion, do not provide sufficient justification as to why his performance during the period of the OPR inserted in records warrants a change to the contested PRF.  The statement from his current MLR president is noted; however, the individual only states that he defers to the judgment of his previous senior rater.  Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the ERAB determination that the documentation submitted by the applicant provides no substantial new evidence.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the proposed changes were based on information that was not available during his original promotion recommendation process.  Further, the proposed PRF does not appear to correct any errors or include any substantive changes.  In view of the above findings and in the absence of more detailed statements from the applicant’s former rating chain, we do not believe that any additional corrections to his records are warranted.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 21 Jan 04, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 10 Sep 03,
                with Exhibits.
	Exhibit H.  Counsel's Letter, dated 17 Dec 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair