RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01061
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period 28 Oct 98 through 27 Oct 99 be replaced with a corrected report.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In May 97, she reported for a level-three acquisition job that she had volunteered for and had willingly signed paperwork for a three-year controlled tour.  In Oct 97, she was selected as Chief of the Commander’s Action Group (CAG) by the Logistics Center Commander.  She had not volunteered for or sought this position, but had been chosen from a list of eligibles and then informed of her selection.  At the time her selection was announced, she pointed out that she had willingly signed the three-year acquisition commitment that locked her into the position.  She was advised that the needs of the Air Force would come first and that her acquisition commitment could be waived.  She also expressed concern that she had recently left a staff position at HQ AFMC and would now be returning to staff work.  The commander promised to put her back into an acquisition position and program after her return from a Defense Systems Management College Advanced Program Management Class (DSMC APMC).  

The next series of events spawned the multiple problems that plagued her duty history from Oct 97 to Dec 00.  There was no military position in the CAG to assign her to, so for her first year, she was assigned against the military slot that she was assigned to in Training Systems.  In 1998, a permanent position was acquired for the CAG chief.  Prior to this, however, she had not been able to get a waiver because there was no actual position to place her against.  When the paperwork for the waiver was finally submitted, she was attending class at DSMC APMC.  As a result multiple and repeated errors occurred in her duty history.  Prior to her departure for class at DSMC, her commander had told her that he intended to place her in charge of the Training Systems Management Division.  This was based on the planned departure of the incumbent which, did not happen.  Since the position she was expecting was no longer available, she was eventually placed in the Inspector General (IG) position.  Although she moved to a different position, an OPR was not required until four months later because she did not change raters.  When she reviewed a copy of her normal annual OPR, she discovered that it had an incorrect duty title, incorrect duty description, and lacked any of her accomplishments as IG.  Although she felt that the OPR should have reflected all her duties and accomplishments, she did not try to get it changed to avoid negatively affecting her relationship with her rater.  When her promotion recommendation form was accomplished in Jun 00, there was not an OPR in her file with any relevant information about her accomplishments as the IG.  She believes that this may have sent an unintended detrimental message to the promotion board about her performance.

Her rater at the time supports her request to correct the OPR.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 24 Sep 79.  A profile of her last ten OPRs follows:

	  Closeout Date				Overall Rating

	    27 Oct 00				Meets Standards
	   *27 Oct 99				Meets Standards
	    27 Oct 98				Meets Standards
	    27 Oct 97				Meets Standards
	    09 May 97				Meets Standards
	    15 Dec 96				Meets Standards
	    15 Dec 95				Meets Standards
	    15 Dec 94				Meets Standards
	    03 Dec 93				Meets Standards
	    22 Feb 93				Meets Standards

She was considered and not selected for promotion to colonel (O-6) by the CY00A (17 Jul 00) central colonel selection board.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division evaluated this application and recommends denial of replacement of the contested OPR with a corrected report, but does recommend that the applicant’s duty title be changed to “Inspector General.”

The memorandum the applicant included from her rater confirms that she had been assigned as IG since 6 Jul 99, but the CAG title was used.  The applicant’s rater had the option of including her duties as IG on the original OPR, but chose not to do so.  Any report can be rewritten to be harder hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s promotion potential.  The time to do this, however, is before the report becomes a matter of record.  The applicant’s rater does not explain how he was hindered from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the report being made a matter of record.  

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotions, Appointments, & Selective Continuation Branch also evaluated this application.  They recommend that the applicant not be provided promotion consideration by special selection board (SSB).

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the ERAB denied.  They accept the findings of the ERAB.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations.  She states that AFPC/DPPP neglected to address the discrepancy highlighted by the two OPRs provided in the appeal package.  They did not explain how both she and another officer could have OPRs stating that both of them were Chief of the Commander’s Action Group.  If the OPR is considered “accurate as written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is provided, the two OPRs documented in her request for correction are evidence that one or both OPRs are incorrect.”

If only the duty title is corrected, as recommended by AFPC/DPPP, any reader of her OPR would question why she held a job for which no accomplishments were documented.  The applicant points out that there is no exhaustive review of an OPR written by a two-star commander at an Air Logistics Center.  This results in a greater likelihood that any errors will be missed.

The applicant also takes issue with the position taken by AFPC/DPPP that she should have appealed her OPR before it became a matter of record.  She states that to do so would be highly irregular and that based on the time period allowed by the Air Force Instruction to request corrections, there is no need to do so.

The applicant rebuts other points contained in the AFPC/DPPP Evaluation and concludes that the facts covering her IG accomplishments were submitted, and the rater is now convinced that he did not issue a fair and accurate report by excluding them.

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.  The Board was primarily persuaded by the support that the applicant received from her rating chain.  The Board notes that while every effort should be made by the rater to prepare a correct report before it becomes a matter of record, ratees do not normally have access to a report until after it has become a matter of record.  The Board believes that the applicant pointed out valid problems with her OPR and finds no basis to question the integrity of her rating chain’s decision to support her request to correct the report.  Therefore, we recommend that the record be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered for the period 28 October 1998 through 27 October 1999 with the duty title “Chief, Commander’s Action Group” be declared void and removed from her records and replaced with the attached corrected OPR for the same period with the duty title “Inspector General.”

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board beginning with the CY00A Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards in which the above referenced OPR was 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
, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 Apr 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 May 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 27 Jun 01.

                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-01061

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 XXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered for the period 28 October 1998 through 27 October 1999, with a duty title of “Chief, Commander’s Action Group”, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records and replaced with the attached corrected OPR for the same period with the duty title of “Inspector General.”

	It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board beginning with the CY00A Central 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

Attachment
Corrected OPR