RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01191
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 12 Mar 97 through 11 Mar 98, be declared void and removed from his records, and replaced with the reaccomplished OPR provided.

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for consideration by the CY98B (P0598B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98, be corrected to include omitted awards and duties.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B (1 Jun 98) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0598B) and all subsequent promotion boards, with his corrected record.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR does not capture the full impact of two primary programs that he managed.  He would like two bullets reaccomplished, one in Section VI and one in Section VII.

The contested PRF omits several significant accomplishments and does not accurately reflect his performance.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the contested OPR and reaccomplished OPR, a copy of the contested PRF and revised PRF, statements of support from his rating chain and Management Level Review (MLR) President, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 16 Dec 81.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 May 94.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		   30 Sep 94	Meets Standards (MS)
		   22 May 95	     MS
		   11 Mar 96		   MS
		   11 Mar 97	     MS
		*# 11 Mar 98	     MS
		## 19 Jan 99	     MS
		### 9 Jun 99	     MS
		####9 Jun 00	     MS

*  Contested OPR

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99.

### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 30 Nov 99.

#### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 28 Nov 00.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 19 Jan 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, stated that the OPR evaluators were aware of the scope of the applicant’s responsibility when the report was originally prepared.  Evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is provided.  None of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were hindered from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the report being made a matter of record.  The appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances for promotion.  As such, DPPPEP is not convinced the contested report is not accurate as written and they do not support the request for removal and replacement.  DPPPEP presumes the applicant received a copy of the contested PRF approximately 30 days before the central promotion board as required by the governing Air Force instruction.  After the applicant reviewed his PRF with the senior rater, he could have corrected or appealed its contents prior to, not after, the promotion board.  In addition, the applicant could have written a letter to the board to further explain his accomplishments or to clarify statements reflected on the PRF.  Therefore, the PRF is accurate as written.  DPPPEP recommended the applicant’s request to substitute the OPR and PRF be denied.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.

The Officer Promotions, Appts and Sel Cont Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPP, stated that the applicant has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0598B, CY99A (P0599A), CY99B (P0599B) and CY00A (P0500A) Central Selection Boards.  The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 which was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  DPPP accepts the ERAB’s findings and those in HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s advisory (Exhibit C) and have nothing further to add.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPP recommended the applicant’s request be denied (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the additional rater supplied additional information to the Board in his letter of 2 Mar 01 showing there were material errors in the process of crafting his PRF and his statement is supported in the senior rater’s letter to the AFBCMR.  The senior rater stated that his original promotion recommendation was in error due to lack of research at the division level.  The senior rater’s statements clearly indicate the PRF crafting process contained material errors.  Writing a letter to the board was not a viable option.  It is common knowledge that writing a letter to any promotion board has a negative impact on one’s chances for promotion.  His rater and additional rater also told him that he had a very strong record and to not be concerned with competing for promotion, so he did not contest his PRF at that time.  In consideration of the information contained in his original AFI 36-2401 request to the ERAB and the added information from his additional rater and senior rater in his application to the AFBCMR, he believes support for the evaluation report changes and a SSB is justified.  A complete copy of this response is appended 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, including the statements from the rating chain & MLR president, we are unpersuaded that the contested reports should be altered.  His contentions are duly noted; however, in our opinion, the Air Force office of primary responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPPPEP) has adequately addressed these contentions and we are in agreement with their recommendation.  Inasmuch as the OPR and PRF in question were prepared in accordance with the governing Air Force instructions, we find them to be appropriately filed in the applicant’s records.  We have reviewed the comments by the evaluators of the contested reports and do not find their statements provide an adequate basis to recommend approval of the requested relief.  Further, it is our opinion that the statements provided in support of the appeal constitute retrospective assessments of the applicant’s performance and potential, written as well-meaning after-the-fact attempts to enhance the applicant’s promotability.  Such motivations are not sufficient to support findings that the reports themselves are erroneous or unjust.  In view of the findings that the contested OPR and PRF are neither unjust nor inaccurate, we believe they should stand as written.  Therefore, applicant’s request to have the contested reports amended and he be given SSB consideration 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 29 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Apr 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Jul 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 30 Jul 01, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair