IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-00569
		INDEX CODE:  111.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period    13 February 1996 through 12 February 1997 be declared void and removed from his records; and, directly promote him to the grade of lieutenant colonel as if selected by the CY98B central lieutenant colonel selection board.  If the Board determines not to directly promote him to lieutenant colonel, he requests they upgrade his CY98B promotion recommendation form (PRF) to reflect a “Definitely Promote” (DP) promotion recommendation and grant him special selection board (SSB) consideration by the CY98B board.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report was inaccurate and unjust; along with his rater being 6,000 miles from his duty station.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a statement from the rater and statements from individuals outside the rating chain.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1991 through 1998  reflect meets standards on all performance factors.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXX, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed the application and states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation.

In reference to the applicant contending his rater did not obtain input from others before finalizing the contested report, they state that while Air Force policy does charge a rater to get meaningful information from the ratee and as many sources as possible, it is the rater’s ultimate responsibility to determine which accomplishments are included on the OPR and whether or not it is necessary for him to gather additional information from other sources in order to render an accurate assessment of the individual.  They state, the applicant’s OPR is not inaccurate or unfair simply because he believes it is.

They state insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s request for direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  They state an officer may be qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a selection board, vested with discretionary authority to make the selections, he may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been a selectee by the CY98B board, they believe a duly constituted board applying the complete promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position to render this vital determination.  They state the board’s prerogative to do so should not be unsurped except under extraordinary circumstances.  They further state, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records and also did not get promoted.

In reference to the statement, if the Board determines a direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel is inappropriate, the applicant requests they direct he receive SSB consideration by the CY98B board with a “DP” promotion recommendation on his PRF, they state, the applicant did not provide the required support from his senior rater or the Management Level Review president to justify a change to the promotion recommendation on the CY98B PRF from “Promote” to “Definitely Promote.”  They, therefore, would be opposed to the Board upgrading the promotion recommendation on the CY98B PRF to a “DP” and granting him SSB consideration by the CY98B board.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that the advisory opinion is disappointing because it is incomplete, unreservedly defensive of the officer evaluation system and the selection process.  He states that had the report been submitted three or four years earlier he would have an opportunity to recover with additional OPRs on top before entering the promotion zone.  

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

Applicant submitted an additional response and states that his case is an example of how it does not work well for officers who work apart from their supervisor.

He states that his chain of command had no opportunity to personally observe his duty performance due to their separation.  Moreover, they did not request an assessment from his on-sight supervisor or any other official at the Embassy.  He states, therefore, the evaluation of his performance, contributions to the unit’s mission and promotion potential were based upon incomplete information.

He states during his discussion by phone with his squadron commander about the OPR, he asked why he had not included his contracting accomplishments.  He responded that there were no meaty contracting issues.  This was surprising since he (the applicant) had spent most of his time negotiating and executing contracts in Denmark and the United States for equipment, construction, supplies and services for XXXXX Air Base totaling $60 million.

Regarding the commander’s 9 November memorandum, he states that he is disappointed that the commander elected to disregard the statements from two senior officials that have personal knowledge of the facts of this case.  It is the responsibility of all evaluators to base assessments on either personal observation or an evaluation from an on-site supervisor.  It would appear, therefore, that in the interest of fairness and justice that the first hand views and judgment of the two senior officials would have been sought when the OPR was initially prepared.  He states that there is no indication that they reviewed such input when they considered this appeal.

He states that it is unfortunate that his selection to a visible, demanding and sensitive assignment that has historically boosted the careers of previous commanders may ruin his.  He states that he could accept that result if it resulted from weak performance rather than a flawed evaluation.  He states the strong statements regarding his performance from his supervisor for his two-year tour in Denmark, the two senior officials clearly discredit the report’s accuracy.

In conclusion he states that if he understood correctly, the Board will agree to change only the one sentence in block 6 in the OPR, and only if the chain of command agrees.  He states that this action would not level the playing field and undo the damage the inaccurate OPR has done to his career.  He requests, therefore, that the Board again review his appeal objectively and logically and render a decision that will permit him to compete fairly for promotion with others who were selected by the 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Board and:

(1) Void the report and direct his promotion to lieutenant colonel along with his contemporaries on the June 1998 promotion list; or

	(2) Void the OPR, direct that a Definitely Promote recommendation be placed in his selection folder and place it before a supplemental board with sample records from the 1998 Lieutenant Colonel Board.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached 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.  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 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 probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 10 August 1999 and 2 February 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dtd 26 Feb 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dtd 15 Mar 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dtd 29 Mar 99.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dtd 8 Apr 99.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Additional Response, dtd 15 Jan 00,
               w/atchs.