RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00967
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

	XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 2 May 97 through 1 May 98 be replaced with a new OPR with corrected rater and additional rater comments and with a stratification statement to correctly reflect his potential.

He be granted promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the CY99B (30 Nov 99) central lieutenant colonel selection board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It was pointed out to him by a reviewer at the Air Force Personnel Center during a non-selection record review that the OPR closing out 1 May 98 was a primary cause of his non-selection for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The main problem with the OPR is the last line of the rater and additional rater blocks, recommending him as an operations officer.  The intent of the statement was a direct recommendation for his next job, not a downgrade from the “future squadron commander” statement in his previous OPR.  The lack of a stratification statement in the OPR was also noted as an additional negative factor.  The applicant states that he contacted his rating chain on the 1 May 98 OPR to determine if it was their intent to send the message that the OPR sent and whether they would support his efforts to correct the OPR.  He received the support of his entire rating chain to correct the OPR.  After getting the support of his rating chain, he sent the entire package to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  The ERAB denied his request to correct the OPR, acknowledging the error but indicating that he should have requested that the report be corrected before it became a matter of record and was reviewed by a central selection board (CSB).  The applicant states that the ruling of the ERAB conflicts with Air Force guidance.  He also states that he was not aware of the errors in his OPR until he was advised by the reviewer at AFPC on 13 Apr 00.

The applicant also states that he is aware of other officers that applied and received approval for OPR corrections after their records had already met a CSB.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 16 Jun 86.  His last ten Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) reflect overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY 99B (30 Nov 99) and CY00A (28 Nov 00) central lieutenant colonel selection boards.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPE, evaluated this application and recommends that the applicant’s request be denied.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  Willingness by evaluators is not a valid reason to change a report.  To effectively challenge an OPR, it is necessary to prove there was an error or injustice.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion; the error must be based on its content.  The job recommendations were appropriate to the member’s grade and current position.  The evaluators state the recommendations were intentional and directed at the applicant’s gaining commander.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Program Management Section, AFPC/DPPPO, also evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  They accept the findings of the ERAB that originally denied the applicant’s appeal and agree with the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPE.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations in an eight-page memorandum with 10 attachments.  The applicant states that he has been unable to get an archive copy of AFI 36-2402, The Officer Evaluation System, dated 1 Jul 96 and that the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPE does not provide any specific guidance to support its opinion.  He, therefore, cannot comment on the evaluation using information from AFI 36-2402.  The applicant states that while an AFPC reviewer cannot specifically state the cause of a member’s non-selection for promotion, they do have a great deal of experience in examining Air Force personnel records and are able to make educated observations about why one record scored high enough to make the promotion cut while others do not.  In his case, the reviewer did point out that the inconsistency between the “destined to be a squadron commander” in his 1 May 97 OPR and the “Mature judgement and dedication dictates operations officer” in his 1 May 98 OPR as well as the lack of an appropriate stratification raised flags to the board.  His current wing commander also noted the same items.

The applicant discuses how the comments made by the rater and additional rater on his OPR closing out 1 May 98 failed to convey their intent and instead gave a negative picture to the promotion board.   The applicant states that he has the support of his rating chain to correct the 1 May 98 OPR.  The applicant notes that the primary reason the ERAB denied his appeal was that he did not seek to get the errors corrected prior to the report becoming a matter of record.  The applicant points out that this conflicts with pertinent Air Force guidance, which allow him to see his OPR only after it has become an official part of his record.  The applicant further references two previous cases with situations similar to his favorably decided by the AFBCMR as support for his appeal.  

The applicant points out that the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPO has some incorrect facts.  He has only two nonselections for promotion instead of three.  He states that his request for promotion consideration by SSB is based on the AFBCMR approving his request.

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the statements of support provided by the applicant’s entire rating chain, the Board was persuaded that the requested changes should be made to the contested OPR.  The Board accepts the statements from his rating chain that the OPR failed to convey their intended message regarding the applicant’s potential.  Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s record be corrected as follows.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 May 1997 through 1 May 1998 be amended as follows:

	  a.  Delete line nine in Section VI, “Rater Overall Assessment”, and replace it with “#1 ISR action officer in USAFE.  Make an Operations Officer now!  Ready for command and SSS!”

	  b.  Delete line five in Section VII, “Additional Rater Overall Assessment”, and replace with “Superstar!  My #1 ISR action officer…ready for ops officer; then command…joint duty and SSS a must!”

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) beginning with the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards in which the above referenced corrected OPR was not a matter of record.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 26 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair
Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 May 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 May 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 01,
                 w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-00967

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Officer Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 May 1997 through 1 May 1998 be amended as follows:

		a.  Delete line nine in Section VI, “Rater Overall Assessment”, and replace it with “#1 ISR action officer in USAFE.  Make an Operations Officer now!  Ready for command and SSS!”

		b.  Delete line five in Section VII, “Additional Rater Overall Assessment”, and replace with “Superstar!  My #1 ISR action officer…ready for ops officer; then command…joint duty and SSS a must!”

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) beginning with the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards in which the above referenced corrected OPR was not a matter of record.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency