RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00606
		INDEX NUMBER: 131.00

	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Material errors contained on his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for the P0503A Central Selection Board, be corrected; the final line of Block IV, be changed to reflect “- Personifies leadership! Number 7 of 90 brilliant EOs--make him a Lt Col now! MSS/CC then joint SSS!”; his record, to include the proposed PRF he has provided, be compared against the two records the senior rater awarded a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation, and if his record is determined to be stronger, the overall recommendation of the PRF be upgraded to a DP; and he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the P0503A board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested PRF contains four material errors, i.e., an incorrect Unit Mission Description (UMD) in Block II, the wrong job description in Block III, and punctuation errors in Block IV.  Collectively, these errors undermine the integrity of the entire PRF, potentially causing the Central Selection Board (CSB) to question all achievements mentioned in the PRF.  In addition, a significant accomplishment was not highlighted in the PRF - the significance of his duties during his 1992 six-month deployment in support of Operation PROVIDE COMFORT.  The failure to highlight this significant accomplishment unjustly hurt his chances for promotion.  The closing comment on the PRF was inappropriately weak.  Further, his senior rater did not afford him a fair evaluation during the DP preparation process and the overall evaluation should be changed to a DP.  

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of his Officer Selection Record (OSR), a reaccomplished PRF, and  statements from the senior rater of the contested PRF and the Management Level Review (MLR) President.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

He was considered in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0503A Central Selection Board.  The PRF prepared for the P0503A board contained an overall recommendation of promote.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied and states, in part, the errors applicant references are minor in nature and do not change the promotability of the record.  Further, the CSB had his entire record to review.  There are no documented errors in Sections IV and IX on the PRF requiring correction.  Applicant failed to provide any justification to support the changes nor did he exercise due diligence prior to the CSB.  Correction of a PRF requires the concurrence of the senior rater and MLR President.  Although the senior rater supports some changes to Section IV of the PRF, he does not support upgrading the overall recommendation to DP.  The MLR President did not support any change. 

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The MLR President did not review the same information provided in his AFBCMR appeal, but rather only that presented by the senior rater that begged to be disapproved.  The PRF is the most important document the CSB has access to and should reflect an accurate assessment of his performance and promotion potential.  Since the MLR President disapproved his request, he did not apply to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The senior rater has admitted in writing there were things in the record he did not understand when preparing the PRF.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief should be granted.  In this regard, we note the senior rater initially supported the applicant’s appeal, however, he later advised the applicant the PRF was not in error.  Additionally, we note the MLR President does not support applicant’s request.  In view of this, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 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 Docket Number BC-2004-00606 in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 03 (sic), w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 May 04.

    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Aug 04.