RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-00033
		INDEX CODE 131.09
		COUNSEL: None

		HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Colonel Selection Board with a date of rank of 1 May 00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The level and range of his responsibilities demonstrated his ability to serve in the next higher grade.  He must achieve the grade of colonel in order to fulfill his commitment to becoming an American embassy attaché. 

During his entire tour at the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), he never had any informal or formal feedback sessions. Therefore, his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) are inaccurate because they reflect feedback sessions had taken place.  The tone, remarks, and assessments of his job performance were inaccurately depicted on his performance reports. His supervisors during his tour at BMDO inconsistently managed his duties, performance and subsequent OPRs. 

In addition, he was serving in a joint-officer billet in BMDO and, in accordance with the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986, was required to attend Joint Professional Military Education (PME) Phase II within one year after assuming the position. However, he was denied the opportunity to attend this required training. Since he had completed Air War College via correspondence, he was not allowed the opportunity to apply for one of the available Senior Service School (SSS) in-residence slots. 

Because his promotion board was moved from Dec 99 to Aug 99, his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was written while he was in his remote tour rather than from his position in Washington DC.  It is important to note the administrative details of his overseas assignment: he was administratively assigned to HQ USAFE (Europe), permanently assigned to an Army post in Germany, on temporary duty (TDY) status to the Former Yugoslavian Republic (FYR), and worked for and had his performance reports written by 
USEUCOM. A senior officer will give the more favorable PRFs to those officers he sees and works with daily than to an unknown officer serving at a remote location.  

He did not receive a copy of the PRF and Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB) in a timely manner. He received both documents on 16 Jul 99.  Errors were noted on the OPB; however, there was no means to correct these errors before the board convened on 2 Aug 99. The Air Force should expend greater resources and effort to insure that an individual’s OPB and PRF are received in a timely manner to effect corrections, especially when the member is on a remote assignment.

The applicant’s 4-page statement, with 16 attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel (date of rank: 1 Apr 94) and is assigned to HQ USAF, Pentagon.  

During the primary period in question, he was assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), BMDO, as the Country Program Manager, International Affairs. He also served as Deputy Director in the absence of the Director of International Affairs. He served a remote tour of duty in the former republic of Yugoslavia-Slovenia in support of several NATO operations.

He was considered as a below-the-promotion-zone (BPZ) candidate by the CY97B (8 Dec 97) and the CY98C (1 Dec 98) colonel selection board, but was not selected.

The applicant was considered, but not selected, as an in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) candidate by the CY99A (2 Aug 99) colonel selection board. The most current duty assignment entry reflected on the CY99A OSB was “16 Jul 99, Bomber Force Programmer.”  He was also not selected by the CY00A (17 Jul 00) board. The overall recommendation for the PRFs considered by these boards was “Promote.”

He filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and, on 25 Jan 00, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) approved his request to correct the OPRs closing 13 Dec 94, 13 Dec 95, 10 May 97 and 10 May 98. As a result, he was afforded consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97B, CY98C and CY99A colonel selection boards on 15 May and 28 Aug 00. The most current duty assignment entry on the CY99A OSB was changed to “16 Jul 99, Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division.” (A 
copy of the corrected Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY99A SSB is provided as an attachment to Exhibit C.) The applicant was not selected by the SSBs.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion, Appts, & Sel Cont. Br., HQ AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed the appeal and does not understand why the applicant did not request his OPB if he had not received it.  He made corrections to the CY99A OSB that was to be reviewed by the SSB and it appears the remaining information was accurate. Further, the applicant physically reviewed his record and was provided a copy of this OSB prior to the SSB. Although not the optimum, the applicant still had a full two weeks to make arrangements with the senior rater if he believed the PRF had material errors.  The PRF used for the central board was the same used for the SSB. This time, the applicant reviewed the PRF prior to the SSB and had opportunity to challenge it if it was incorrect.  They have no record he challenged the PRF’s validity. Further, the applicant provided additional information for the CY99A SSB’s consideration. He has been given due process on these issues. Other than the applicant’s own opinions, he has provided no substantiation to his allegations.  All the issues he has brought forth in this current appeal were rectified during the SSB. No further relief is warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, states that a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent OPR or PRF.  Further, AFI 36-2402 states a senior rater provides a ratee a copy of the PRF approximately [emphasis advisory’s] 30 days, not a minimum of 30 days, before the selection board.  While the applicant did reference incorrect data on his OPB, he made no mention of errors or inaccuracies on his PRF or what impact (if any) not receiving it until two weeks before the board had on his nonselection.  The applicant has been granted due process through SSB consideration. No further relief is warranted. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his rebuttal, with 8 attachments, the applicant contends the most current duty assignment entry on the CY99A OSB reviewed by the SSB was incorrect and should have been “Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division,” not Bomber Force Programmer. [However, according to Attachment 2 provided by HQ AFPC/DPPPO at Exhibit C, the OSB for the CY99A SSB was corrected to reflect “Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division” as the most current duty assignment.] There was no avenue for him to address or challenge the validity of the PRF with his being on a remote tour and the promotion board only two weeks away. He expounds on his earlier contentions and asserts the advisory opinions have not addressed all the issues. He was clearly denied available opportunities to obtain the important milestone [of SSS in-residence] for his consideration to colonel.  He understands the need to schedule promotion boards when needed. However, the rescheduling of his promotion board coupled with the extension of his remote tour unfairly and improperly degraded the strength of his posturing for meeting his primary colonel promotion board.  He requests direct promotion to colonel.

A complete copy of his response, with 8 attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Assignment Procedures & Joint Officer Management Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPE, advises that the purpose of Joint Professional Military Education Phase II (JPME II) is to train and educate officers in joint matters and to establish a pool of eligible officers for joint specialty officer (JSO) nomination. It is not a prerequisite for joint assignments.  The JPME II training quotas cannot support all officers selected yearly for joint assignments.  Nominating officers, like the applicant, for TDY and return is at the discretion, but not the obligation, of the supervisor and general officer assigned to the joint organization.  

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, notes that the applicant asserts his job performance was inaccurately depicted on his OPRs. However, he has not provided statements from rating chain evaluators regarding any particular performance reports with which he may be concerned. Unsubstantiated conjectures about the motives of the evaluators, or how or why the report turned out as it did, do not contribute to the case.  Also, lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accurate or justness of a report. Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.  He has not substantiated his OPRs were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Chief, Officer Promotion & Appointment Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, confirmed that the applicant’s duty title was accurately reflected as “Deputy Chief, Combat Forces Division” on the CY99A OSB used during his SSB process.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS:

The applicant provided a 10-page rebuttal, with 10 attachments, consisting primarily of the directives cited in his letter. He argues that the advisory is correct in stating that attendance at JPME II is not a requirement for joint assignments; however, it is mistaken in the assertion that there is no obligation to nominate officers serving in a joint organization to attend JPME II training.  The establishment of the two-phase JPME system is the basic foundation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 86 to create a seamless joint US military through the establishment of the JSO designation in the Services’ officer corps.  With regard to the OPRs in question, performance feedback, and not having letters from the evaluators, he did not want to engage in an unprofessional, unproductive “he said/she said” melee.  Contrary to the evaluation, there is a strong and essential link between performance feedback and the performance report. He has provided documentation demonstrating the unwillingness of his rater to conduct the feedback session and complete the Performance Feedback Worksheet. His supervisory chain did not comply with the core values of the Officer Evaluation System (OES) and Officer Professional Development (OPD). Without completion of JPME II, he could not be awarded the JSO certification. This action also circumvented the requirement for performance report standards, promotion board membership, and promotion board standard.  By the very nature of serving at the highest levels of the HQ Air Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, he has demonstrated the capability to serve in the next higher grade. 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submissions, we are not persuaded that he should be promoted to the grade of colonel through the correction of records process. The offices of primary responsibility have adequately addressed the applicant’s essentially uncorroborated assertions and we agree with their opinions and recommendations. Contrary to his implied contention, the rater’s handwritten note does not confirm that feedback never occurred. Further, he has not demonstrated that any alleged lack of feedback or rating chain mismanagement adversely impacted his performance, unfairly denied him nomination for specific training and assignment, or resulted in his nonselection for promotion. The applicant had ample opportunity to challenge the validity of his record and correct any perceived inaccuracies therein when the SSBs for the CY97B, CY98C and CY99A selection boards considered him for promotion to colonel. He also provided additional information in a letter for the CY99A SSB’s consideration. The OSB reviewed by the CY99A SSB correctly reflected his then most current duty assignment entry. The evidence submitted to this Board does not demonstrate that the applicant’s performance reports, PRFs, or OSBs were erroneous when reviewed by the SSBs, that his record was not afforded full and fair consideration, or that he was wrongfully deprived of any professional education, assignment, promotion or due process. We do not doubt the applicant is a dedicated professional; however, he has not shown he is entitled to direct promotion to colonel or to any additional correction to his records beyond those already effected. We therefore adopt the rationale expressed in the Air Force evaluations as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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 issue(s) 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 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 27 Sep 01 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
			Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Feb 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 8 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Feb 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Mar 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPE, dated 13 Jun 01.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Jul 01.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 19 Jul 01, w/atch.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Jul 01.

                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair