RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02587
		INDEX NUMBER:  135.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) beginning with the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved corrections to her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 5 Apr 02 and   5 Apr 03 by changing the phrase “Intermediate Service School” (ISS) to “Senior Service School” (SSS) in Blocks VI and VII.  However they denied her request for promotion consideration by SSB.  In her discussion with the records reviewer following her promotion board, she was advised to get the corrections made to these two OPRs because the recommendation for ISS in her recent OPRs could appear confusing and give an unclear picture of her accomplishments/experience.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a copy of the ERAB decision and copies of the corrected OPRs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 5 Apr 85.  She has five nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel beginning with the CY00A promotion board.  A review of her OPRs of record during these boards indicates overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  On 7 Jun 04, the ERAB partially approved an appeal submitted by the applicant to correct her OPRs closing 5 Apr 02 and 5 Apr 03.  The ERAB corrected the applicant’s OPRs to reflect a recommendation for SSS vice ISS.  They denied the applicant’s requests to add stratification to her OPRs and to be considered for promotion by SSB.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  There is no clear evidence the incorrect PME recommendations on her OPRs negatively impacted her promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record, assessing factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, etc.  The selection board had the applicant’s entire selection record that clearly outlined her accomplishments since she came on active duty.  Additionally, although the PME recommendations on the two OPRs were subsequently corrected, her Promotion Recommendation Forms for the CY02B and CY03A boards correctly reflected “SSS.”  Therefore, they believe the Board was able to distinguish between the incorrect PME recommendations on the contested OPRs and the correct data on her PRFs and previous OPRs.

AFPC/DPPPO provides copies of the applicant’s referenced PRFs and Officer Selection Briefs for the CY02B and CY03A promotion boards.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 Oct 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in 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 Docket Number BC-2004-02587 in Executive Session on 17 November 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.