RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03654
				INDEX CODE:  111.00 & 131.00
				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Air Force (AF) Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) that met the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), be replaced with a reaccomplished report.

2.  He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original PRF omitted in Section IV his selection to cross flow from an airlift to tanker major weapons system (MWS).  This critical information would have significantly increased his probability for promotion.  This information was on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 28 September 2000, which met the CY00A selection board.  He believes the critical information was missing from his PRF because it was not processed within the PRF timeline.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

The applicant submitted an application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The ERAB denied the applicant’s requests.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A, CY01B, CY02B, and CY03A lieutenant colonel central selection boards.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			        1 Jan 98			Meets Standards
			        1 Jan 99			Meets Standards
			        1 Jan 00			Meets Standards
			      *28 Sep 00			Meets Standards
			     **15 May 01			Meets Standards
			    ***15 May 02			Meets Standards
			    ****8 Apr 03			Meets Standards

     * Top report at time of CY00A Lt Col Bd
    ** Top report at time of CY01B Lt Col Bd
   *** Top report at time of CY02B Lt Col Bd
  **** Top report at time of CY03A Lt Col Bd

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states for the senior rater to change Section IV of the PRF, he would have to demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF; or a material error in the record of performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF; or a material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted.  In the applicant’s case, these requirements have not been met.

The PRF is considered a working copy until the start of the CSB.  Senior raters have the flexibility to change PRFs before they become a matter of record.  The applicant stated he informed his senior rater of the missing information on his PRF.  His senior rater had the opportunity to change the PRF and elected not to make any changes.  The senior rater has the sole responsibility of what items to include on the PRF.  The applicant’s senior rater has not provided any documentation or information explaining why he did not make changes to the PRF prior to the convening of the board.  If the applicant still believed this was critical information for the promotion board to review, he could have written a letter to the board to inform them of his cross flow.

The applicant made changes to the unit mission description and Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) without any supportive documentation from his senior rater and management level review president as required.  These changes were included in the applicant’s ERAB but were not addressed for the applicant to provide supporting documentation for these changes.

Based on the information provided DPPPE recommends the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states 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.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 February 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Although the applicant provided a reaccomplished PRF and supporting letters from his senior rater and the Management Level Review (MLR) president, these individuals do not provide persuasive evidence why the senior rater did not make changes to the contested report prior to convening of the board.  In this respect, we note the applicant stated he informed his senior rater of the missing information prior to the convening of the board and his senior rater apparently chose not to change the report prior to the board, as was his right to do.  Furthermore, the applicant had the opportunity to write the promotion board informing them of missing information in his PRF, but chose not to do so.  In addition, we note changes to the DAFSC and unit mission description; however, no evidence has been presented explaining the reason for these changes.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03654 in Executive Session on 10 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Officer Selection Brief.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Jan 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Jan 04
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.