RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00962
		INDEX NUMBER:  131; 111.01

	XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered on him for the period 22 Jun 97 through 30 Apr 98 and 1 May 98 through 1 Nov 98 be removed from his records.

He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel or considered for promotion by special selection board (SSB).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater for the OPR closing out 30 Apr 98 did not have sufficient days of supervision to render a report on him and the Additional Rater should have been his Rater.

He never received required feedback from his rater for the    30 Apr 98 report.

He accepted a job on 1 Apr 98 in PACAF DOX under the strict condition that Colonel ---- would be his primary rater.  This did not happen as indicated on his report closing out 1 Nov 98 where he is instead the Additional Rater.

He underwent multiple changes of reporting officials without his knowledge and never received performance feedback for the period covered in his 1 Nov 98 report.

The closeout dates and signatures of the rater and additional raters for the 1 Nov 98 OPR were backdated and forged.  The applicant presents a copy of a tracking sheet as evidence of this.

His 1 Nov 98 OPR was not included with his records that met his MAJCOM Management Level Review Board and placed him at a significant disadvantage and impacted on his promotion or career opportunity.  Also, this report was late to file based on the requirements in AFI 2402.

He was the only one in his section that his Additional Rater for his 1 Nov 98 OPR did not directly rate.  Since he was hired with the stipulation that he would be directly rated by the individual serving as his Additional Rater, this constitutes an injustice.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 4 Apr 84.  A review of his last ten OPRs, including the two contested OPRs, reflects overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  He has three nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), and CY00A (8 Nov 00) lieutenant colonel selection boards.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The applicant contends that his designated raters did not write the OPRs closing 30 Apr 98 and 1 Nov 98.  Inaccurate designations and failures to change raters can occur when personnel retire, are reassigned…, etc.  To prove the wrong rater wrote the report, the applicant must obtain statements from all of the individuals who signed the report and from the individuals who believe they should have written the report.  Those memorandums should include the “from and thru” dates of their supervision and explain what happened.  The “erroneous” evaluators must clearly explain why they wrote and signed a report when they were not the rater.  Likewise the “correct” evaluator must explain why he or she did not write the report even though they were supposed to.  Also helpful is a letter from the unit commander (the one in place on the closeout date of the contested OPR), since Unit commanders establish rating chains within their organizations.

On the OPR closing 30 Apr 98, the applicant requests that this OPR be voided because the wrong rater, who did not have adequate supervision or provide performance feedback wrote it.  The applicant includes email from his MAJCOM DP who explains, “The rules do not allow the additional rater to write the OPR in lieu of the rater unless the rater had died, was missing in action, …”  The DP points out that while the “130 days” TDY were not deducted from the total days supervision on the contested OPR, there were still 151 days of supervision.  

On the OPR closing 1 Nov 98, the applicant believes the wrong person wrote this report, the evaluators forged the signature dates, and the report was late to file.  The applicant did not provide evidence proving the wrong person wrote the OPR or that the signature dates were forged.  They agree that the report was late to file, but that does not make it invalid.

The applicant provided evidence substantiating that the OPR closing 1 Nov 98 was missing from his record of performance when his MAJCOM MLR convened.  Since he failed to prove the OPR is illegal, it would be appropriate for the applicant to request reconsideration by the PACAF MLR with inclusion of the missing report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec 97.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation Branch also evaluated this application.  They recommend denial of the applicant’s requests.

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied.  The ERAB was not convinced the reports should be voided, and the applicant did not provide proper documentation to support his appeal.

In regards to the applicant’s request for direct promotion or consideration by SSB, direct promotion has only been considered in the most extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration has been deemed to be totally unworkable.  The applicant’s case clearly does not fall into that category.  His case clearly does not warrant direct promotion or consideration by SSB.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluations.  The applicant states that both evaluations emphasize insufficient evidence, but fail to acknowledge all the proof he has submitted throughout the entire process.  As for the MAJCOM MLR, he states that as he understands it, that process is used if you have questions concerning your PRF not your OPR.  

Concerning the designated rater issue, he states that it was more a function of what he was told both via e-mails and in person when accepting these positions.  In response to the AFPC/DPPP evaluation, he states that it is impossible to recreate proof of the multiple changes of reporting officials.

On his OPR closing out 30 Apr 98, he again emphasizes that the individual writing the report as rater was never his rater and that the MAJCOM DP “fails miserably in his efforts to answer the question concerning his rater.”  

The applicant also addresses issues related to his OPR closing out 1 Nov 98.

The applicant’s complete response is 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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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.  The Board was not persuaded by the evidence presented by the applicant that the contested OPRs are improper.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions regarding his immediate raters, it appears that this is a case of preference as opposed to a requirement mandated by Air Force Instructions.  The Board notes that he did not provide any conclusive evidence such as an inspector general (IG) report or equal opportunity and treatment investigation to support his allegations of bias and unfair treatment.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  We do, however, support the recommendation of AFPC/DPPP that the applicant request through appropriate channels reconsideration by the PACAF MLR with inclusion of the missing 1 Nov 98 OPR.

_______________________________________________________________

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 16 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 18 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 May 01
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 8 Jul 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair