RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01307
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Per AFI 36-2401, he believes the contested PRF was written unjustly because it does not accurately reflect the promotion potential in his records.  The PRF was wrongly endorsed by the 81st Wing Commander due to his lack of observation time and his refusal to seek out second opinions after he made a formal request for him to do so.  In addition, the senior rater did not know him and based his signature upon his supervisor (at the time) that unjustly wrote a poor PRF.  The senior rater refused to answer his inquires about the PRF that he addressed per AFI 36-2406.  The senior rater refused to tell him if he saw his whole record before he signed the in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) PRF.

The IPZ PRF seemingly took him out of competition and did not give him a fair chance to compete.  The net result was that the indifferent recommendation in the last line of the IPZ PRF, along with the entire PRF, sent a signal to the board of mediocrity rather than a true picture of his performance and potential.  At the least, it was professional incompetence from a new Group Commander who had no experience writing a PRF at that level.

He further indicates that he is not asking for an automatic promotion, just a chance to meet another board with a new PRF from his current chain of command.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of the contested Promotion Recommendation Form prepared for the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel Board, letter from the former 81st Wing Commander, dated 27 March 2003, letter from the former 81st Vice Wing Commander, dated 10 March 2003, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 1999.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B (12 November 2002) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

OPR profile since 1996 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			19 Oct 96		Meets Standards (MS)
			31 Aug 97				(MS)
			31 Aug 98				(MS)
			31 Aug 99				(MS)
			10 May 00				(MS)
			10 May 01				(MS)
			10 May 02				(MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant has not provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level president as required.  To change section IV, the senior rater must demonstrate that there was a material error in the PRF, a material error in the record of performance (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 have reviewed the findings in the 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 EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicated that AFPC/DPPPE is mistaken about the requirement to provide a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level president as required.  They seem to be referring to the AF Form 948 process for the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The AF Form 948 process for the ERAB would be for an administrative error type of correction and a new PRF would be processed from the old chain of command that signed off on it originally.  In other words, the old chain of command would have to “auto-correct” itself.  This appeal is not based on an administrative error but on an unfair promotion potential assessment.

The summary by AFPC/DPPPE suggests that the senior rater on his IPZ PRF has to decide by himself that he was unfair.  What he’s seeking is a third party judgment via AFI 36-2603 (AFBCMR).  AFPC/DPPPE is wrongly referencing AFI 36-2401, Table 3 (Correcting AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation).  He is not requesting to change section IV, he is seeking judgment IAW paragraph A1.6.21.  Voiding a PRF, which states, “You must provide substantial evidence proving the PRF does not contain a valid promotion potential assessment and that it is not possible to correct the form.”  He indicates that he has submitted this evidence with his appeal.

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 probable error or injustice warranting relief.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after a thorough review of the evidence submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested PRF is either in error or unjust.  The applicant contends that the PRF was written unjustly and does not accurately reflect his promotion potential.  The Board notes that the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the rating chain.  The Board also notes that the applicant has provided supporting statements from individuals outside the rating chain; however, these individuals were not in a position to evaluate the applicant’s performance during the contested period.  The Board would be willing to reconsider the applicant’s appeal if he provided supporting documentation from his senior rater along with a reaccomplished PRF signed by his senior rater during the contested time period.  There being insufficient evidence to the contrary, the Board finds 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-2003-01307 in Executive Session on 30 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 April 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 April 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 May 2003.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 July 2003, w/atch.