RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00763
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY01B Colonel Central Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF and that she be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was unaware along with the members of her rating chain of the requirement to include follow-on assignment and Senior Service School (SSS) recommendations on the PRF.  She believes that due to the absence of these recommendations on her PRF, her record was at a disadvantage when it met the board and affected her chance for promotion.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision, dated 22 January 2003, AF Form 709 (Promotion Recommendation Form) prepared for the CY01B Board, AF Form 709 (Reaccomplished PRF), and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 1998.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01B (3 December 2001) and the CY02B (13 December 2002) Colonel Selection Board.  She received a “Promote” PRF for both boards.

OPR profile since 1996 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			31 Jul 96		Meets Standards (MS)	
			11 May 97				(MS)
			11 May 98				(MS)
			11 May 99				(MS)
		    	11 May 00				(MS)
			11 May 01				(MS)
			11 May 02				(MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant has provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level review (MLR) president as required.  However, to change Section IV, the senior rater must demonstrate that there was a material error in the PRF, a material error in the ROP that substantially impacted the content of the PRF or a material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted.  These requirements have not been met.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicated that they reviewed the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE advisory, and have nothing further to add.  Since that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that AFPC is trying to unfairly prejudice her chances of getting a fair shake before the AFBCMR.  Her senior rater submitted a letter stating he erred in leaving out the information on SSS and the follow-on job.  While these entries are not required, she has discovered since nonselection that it is a clear signal to nonselect if they are not in the document.  The Review Board’s language makes it clear that the senior rater, who has the responsibility, should be the party to state when an error has been made.  He has done this and he has admitted to his error, which is not an easy thing to do.  Clearly this was an error and, given the system, the error was a material error.  If the facts were, as the Review Board would have you believe, the addition of this language to her PRF would not change the results of the board.

Applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice.  The applicant contends that she was unaware along with the members of her rating chain of the requirement to include follow-on assignment and Senior Service School (SSS) recommendations on the PRF.  She believes that due to the absence of these recommendations on her PRF, her record was at a disadvantage when it met the board and affected her chance for promotion.  The letters from the senior rater and the Management Level Review (MLR) president are duly noted; however, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant has not provided evidence that the senior rater was unaware of this guidance.  Rather, it appears he chose not to include any comments about the applicant’s follow-on assignment and SSS recommendations on the contested PRF.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we are not convinced that the rating official did not render an accurate assessment of applicant’s performance and potential at the time the PRF was prepared.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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 BC-2003-00763 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 February 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 22 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 June 2003.

					   
					   Panel Chair 

AFBCMR BC-2003-00763

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 the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records and the attached PRF, reflecting in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, last line, “Top 5% of JAs seen by AETC and 19 AF/JAs; send to SSS and make her a NAF SJA -- DP if I had one!” be accepted for file in its place.

          It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the attached PRF.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
PRF

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

FROM:  SAF/MR

SUBJECT: 
I have carefully reviewed all the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the decision of the AFBCMR panel to deny the applicant’s requests.
Applicant was not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board.  Her senior rater did not include recommendations for a follow-on assignment or PME on the PRF prepared for the CY01B board.

	Applicant appealed to the Board requesting a reaccomplished PRF be placed in her records and she be provided SSB consideration.  She contends the lack of the recommendations negatively impacted her opportunity for promotion.  She provides a letter from her senior rater, and concurred in by the MLR president, attesting to the fact there was an error made on the PRF by not including a statement regarding job and school recommendations.  Additionally, she provides a reaccomplished PRF.  On June 26, 2003, the Board denied the request indicating they were not convinced the rating official did not render an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance and potential at the time the PRF was prepared, but rather he chose not make these recommendations.  I disagree.  In taking this view, it would appear that the AFBCMR does not accept the statement from the senior rater that he erred by not including such statements and this was clearly an oversight on his part, and apparently they do not believe he should have the opportunity to correct his mistake.  In my view, the applicant’s record supports the position the senior rater did indeed make a mistake.  The top OPR for the CY01B board for which he was the additional rater includes a recommendation for a job and AWC in-residence.  There is no way to determine with any degree of certainty if these omissions adversely affected the applicant’s promotion opportunity.  However, the senior rater’s statement clearly indicates he erred by not including these recommendations on the PRF he submitted.

	Since the usual standard for approving these types of cases is the unequivocal support of the applicant’s senior rater and MLR president, I believe the element of doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor. Accordingly, it is my decision the applicant’s requests be granted.

			
			Assistant Secretary 
			(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)