RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00953
		INDEX CODE 111.01   111.05
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the period 17 February 1986 through 16 February 1987, be amended to reflect a close-out date of 1 January 1988 and the number of days of supervision be adjusted accordingly.

2.	The Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, AF Form 77, dated 2 August 1995, covering the period 17 February 1987 through 1 January 1988, be removed from his records.

3.	His corrected record be considered by any Senior Service School (SSS) candidacy/designation/selection boards and by any colonel selection boards that the now voided OER rendered for the period 17 February 1987 through 1 January 1988, was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Since the Supplemental Evaluation Sheet is dated 2 years after his primary colonel selection board met, it sent a clear “Red Flag” to any selection board that there was a problem with his record.

The applicant states that although removal of the OER, closing 1 January 1988, provided some relief, it does not provide permanent and full correction.  The Supplemental Evaluation Sheet only documents that the report was removed and provides no information about his performance or performance-based potential.  As a result, board members, senior raters, or reporting officials are left to speculate about what happened.  This is especially true when it comes to Special Selection Boards (SSBs) where voided reports serve as a “Red Flag” to board members and can be prejudicial.  He should not be penalized by a void created by a Supplemental Evaluation Sheet in his record which is through no fault of his own.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the indorser of the voided OER, his personal statement and copies of the contested OER and Supplemental Evaluation Sheet. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY93A and CY94A Col boards.

On 6 October 1994, the Board considered applicant’s request that the OER rendered for the period 9 November 1974 through 30 April 1975 be upgraded to “9.4,” or in the alternative, the OER be removed from his records and he be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY93A Col board.  The Board was not persuaded that the record raised issues of error or injustice, but elected to deny the application on the basis of timeliness (94-00337).

On 15 June 1995, the Board favorably considered applicant’s request that the OER rendered for the period 17 February 1987 through 1 January 1988 be declared void and he be considered for promotion by SSBs for the CY92A, CY93 and CY94 Col boards, and if selected, he be considered for SSS (94-03053).

On 2 August 1996, the Board reconsidered, and denied on the merits, the applicant’s request that the OER rendered for the period 9 November 1974 through 30 April 1975 be upgraded to “9.4,” or in the alternative, the OER be removed from his records and he be considered by SSB for any and all promotion, augmentation and SSS boards convened after 30 April 1975 (94-00337).

On 1 October 1996, the Board considered applicant’s request that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel be declared void; he be directly promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by the CY93 Col board, with retroactive pay, benefits, and entitlements; or in the alternative, the PRF prepared for the CY93A Col board be removed from his records and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF reflecting an overall “Definitely Promote” recommendation and his corrected record be considered for promotion by an SSB for the CY93A Col board.  The Board denied his request for direct promotion to the grade of colonel through the correction of records process and favorably considered the remainder of his requests (96-00856).

On 22 July 1997, the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the grade of lieutenant colonel with a compensable disability rating of 50%, based on severe avascular necrosis of the left hip and status post total left hip arthroplasty.

On 23 May 1999, the Board reconsidered and denied the applicant’s request for direct promotion (96-00856).

On 14 September 1999, the applicant was permanently retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel with a compensable disability rating of 30%, based on avascular necrosis of the left hip and status post left total hip arthroplasty.  He completed 24 years, 10 months, and 2 days of active service for retirement.

Applicant’s OER/OPR profile, since 1986, is as follows:

        PERIOD ENDING                OVERALL EVALUATION

          16 Feb 86 (Maj)                  1-1-1
        * 16 Feb 87                        1-1-1
           1 Jan 88 (AF Fm 77)    Removed by SAF (94-03053)
           1 Jan 89                 Meets Standards (MS)
          30 Jun 89 (LtCol)                  MS
          30 Jun 90                          MS
          30 Jun 91                          MS
          21 Jan 92                          MS
        # 21 Jan 93                          MS
       ## 31 Dec 93                          MS
          12 Jun 94                          MS
          12 Jun 95                          MS
          12 Jun 96                          MS

* Contested report

# Top report reviewed by CY93A Col board

## Top report reviewed by CY94A Col board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed the application and states that there are no technical errors in the processing of the voided report.  The applicant requested the OER be removed from his records and the Board approved his request.  In accordance with the governing regulation, the voided OER was replaced with a Supplemental Evaluation Sheet and the applicant received supplemental consideration for SSS.

AFPC/DPPP believes that it would not be in the interest of the majority of the force to allow an individual to choose the manner in which corrections to records are made.  Applicant had a report in his record, chose to have it removed and now does not agree with the form that replaced the voided report.  While the applicant is entitled to his opinion, it is strictly supposition on his part that his record is sending up a “red flag.”  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and finds it hard to believe that AFPC/DPPP would question the indorser’s statement and the integrity of this senior officer.  Furthermore, they are incorrect in stating that it would not be in the interest of justice for the Board to deviate from the regulatory guidelines and alter a previous OER written by a different rating chain.  To the contrary, the voided OER was written by the same rater and indorser as the contested OER that he wishes to amend. 

Concerning the timeliness of his request, the applicant states that he has been actively pursuing this issue since 1993.  Had he been aware that he could have requested that the now voided OER be amended, he would have done so in his original application.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In a previous application to the Board, the applicant requested voidance of the OER, closing 1 January 1988.  The Board favorably considered his request and in 1995, the report was removed from his records.  The applicant now requests the close-out date of the previous OPR, closing 16 February 1987, be changed to 1 January 1988.  The statement from General ---- is noted; however, this Board has, on several occasions, found that numerous officers who have voids in their records have successfully competed for promotion.  Furthermore, we find no evidence that he has been treated any differently than other officers similarly situated.  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.

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 9 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 4 Apr 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 01

                                   
                                   Chair