RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00711
		INDEX CODE:  111.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 30 Sep 95 and 30 Sep 96, be amended to include recommendations for professional military education (PME) and that he be considered for promotion to major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B Central Major Selection Board (P0498B), which convened on 6 Apr 98.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rating chain was unaware of the importance promotion board members placed on PME recommendations when they originally wrote the contested OPRs.

In support of his request, applicant submits personal statements and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions, which include copies of his AFI 36-2401 appeals (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 12 Dec 87.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 28 Aug 91.

Applicant's profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		   30 Sep 92	Meets Standards (MS)
		   20 Feb 93	     MS
		   18 Feb 94	Education/Training Report
		   20 Feb 94	     MS
		   20 Feb 95	     MS
		*  30 Sep 95	Meets Standards (MS)
		*  30 Sep 96	     MS
		#  29 Jul 97	     MS
		##  5 May 98	     MS
		   10 Feb 99	     MS

*  Contested OPRs

# Top report at the time he was considered In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY98B Central Major Board, which convened on 6 Apr 98.

## Top report at the time he was considered Above-the-Promotion Zone (APZ) and selected for promotion to major by the CY99A Central Major Board, which convened on 8 Mar 99.

Similar appeals by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, were considered by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 6 Nov 98 and 27 Jan 99.  The ERAB partially approved the applicant’s appeal regarding the OPR closing 30 Sep 95.  The ERAB removed the augmentation recommendation from the report, but denied the applicant’s request to add a recommendation for professional military education (PME) to the report and grant him SSB consideration.  The ERAB denied the applicant’s request to add a PME recommendation to the OPR closing 30 Sep 96.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPP stated that none of the supporters of the appeal explain how they were hindered from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the report being made a matter of record.  The raters have all stated that had they known how much emphasis promotion board members placed on PME recommendations, they would have included them on the OPRs.  The appeals process is not meant to rewrite history or enhance chances for promotion.  As such, DPPP is not convinced the contested reports are not accurate as written, therefore, they do not support the applicant’s request to add PME recommendations to the OPRs.  PME recommendations on OPRs are a very small part of the officer’s entire record of accomplishment.  DPPP is opposed to the applicant receiving SSB consideration on this issue.  DPPP agrees with the applicant’s contention that recommendations for PME are appropriate on OPRs; however, they are not mandatory.  Therefore, the OPRs are not erroneous simply because they do not include PME recommendations.

The applicant contends the original 30 Sep 95 OPR contained errors (the ERAB removed the erroneous information) and was late to file.  DPPP stated that many OPRs are late to file, but amending them to include a PME recommendation, or embellishing them subsequent to them becoming a matter of record is not appropriate.  DPPP contends the “late to file” error is corrected when a report is finally filed in a member’s OSR and becomes a matter of record.  In this instance, the applicant and his rating chain had an additional 131 days (since the report was late to file) to identify the erroneous augment recommendations on the OPR and include desired PME recommendations.  The ERAB “righted the wrong” and removed the augment statements from the contested report.  The Air Force considers these types of corrections to be administrative in nature; therefore, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He stated that individuals familiar with the promotion process believe PME recommendations, consistent between the rater and additional rater, are mandatory for promotion selection.  In response to the advisory writer’s statement that “the OPRs are not erroneous simply because they do not include recommendations for PME,” he indicated that these “correct” reports unfairly discriminate against those officers with raters who are not privy to the unwritten standards of the promotion boards.  This inconsistency is further compounded by administrative policies of each unit.  He believes the advisory writer’s perspective, as one directorate within AFPC, is inconsistent with Officer Promotions, another directorate in AFPC.  This inconsistency may be the result of “8 different evaluation systems with 14 major variations” in response “to continuing inflation in OER ratings and indorsement levels.”  Despite the most recent efforts by the CS/AF and AF/DP, the written guidance for performance reports falls short of the unwritten standards applied by the promotion boards.  Therefore, he request the Board consider the rater’s (Colonel B---‘s) requested change of his assessment to “Strong leadership skills—select for Advanced Communications Officer Training and ISS in residence.”

He was selected for promotion to the grade of major, above-the-zone, by the CY99A promotion board.  Notably, his records included two additional reports with consistent recommendations for command and PME.  Still, he is one year behind his peers in professional development.  

If the Board corrects either report, he requests the Board also authorize consideration of the Special Selection Board as an “in the zone” candidate.  The erroneous recommendations of the first report, and the “inconsistent” recommendations of the second report, ensured the CY98B promotion board did not review accurate or fair reports of his promotion potential.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is appended 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 probable error or injustice.  With regard to Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations, the Board majority noted that the governing Air Force instruction stipulates PME recommendations are optional.  While the statements from the evaluators reflect their rationale for not including the additional information at the time they rendered the reports in question, the Board majority is unpersuaded by these statements.  Additionally, it is the Board majority’s opinion that since the final reviewer was a colonel, it was his responsibility, at the time the contested reports were rendered, to question the omission of a PME recommendation, if he believed one was warranted, and to have had the reports corrected before they became a matter of record.  The Board majority believes it was the decision of the evaluators, at the time the contested reports were initially written, that the reports were complete and accurate.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence that the applicant’s record before the CY98B Central Major Board was substantially in error, or that the board was unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his promotability, the Board majority finds 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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 13 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

voted to deny the applicant’s request.  voted to grant the applicant’s request because he did not feel the applicant’s rating chain was cognizant of the importance of a PME recommendation, but he did not desire to submit a minority report.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 6 Apr 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Apr 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 21 Jun 99, w/atchs.