RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01835
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00; 111.01

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The closeout dates and respective signatures on his officer performance reports (OPRs) closing out 12 Jul 96, 12 Jul 97, and 12 Jul 98 be corrected to reflect closeout dates of 31 May 96, 31 May 97, and 31 May 98 respectively.

The line in Section IV of his OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 that reads “As squadron commander, lauded by Group CC for flawless handling of myriad of personnel issues” be interchanged with the statement in Section VII that reads “Coordinated over 100 short-notice contingency tasking; insightfully balanced theater/worldwide needs.”

The first line in Section VII of his OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 that reads “Superlative officer!  We gave XXX the tough jobs…he never let us down…set numerous firsts in AIA” be replaced with “DSMC Advanced Prog Mgmt Course star!  Extremely few selected for acquisition’s “Top Gun” course.”

His duty history on his Officer Selection Brief be corrected to reflect “Student, SOS”, 19 Mar 86-16 May 96, and “Student, DMSC.”

He be granted promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) starting with the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and that the correction previously approved to his 21 May 95 OPR by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) also be considered as a basis for promotion consideration by SSB.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 should have closed out 31 May 96 based on the closeout date of 21 May 95 of his previous report and the fact that his rater assumed supervision on 2 Feb 96.  His rater had the necessary 120 days supervision as of 31 May 96 and it had already exceeded a year since his last report.  

His OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 started a domino effect that resulted in his next three reports closing out in July.  Consequently, when he was considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B (1 Jun 98) central promotion board, an OPR documenting his most recent performance was not on file.

Two of the lines in his 2 Jul 96 OPR are placed in the wrong sections and could possibly have negatively impacted the promotion board’s assessment of him.

His records do not reflect that he attended the Defense System Management College (DSMC), Advanced Program Management Course (APMC).

The applicant’s complete evaluation 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 is 2 Jun 82.  A profile of his last ten OPRs reflects overall ratings of “meets standards.”  He was considered but not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B     (1 Jun 98), CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), and CY00A (28 Nov 00) selection boards.

The applicant submitted an appeal application to the ERAB requesting that his OPR closing out 21 May 95 be corrected to reflect Senior Service School, Air War College, and promotion consideration by SSB for the CY98B promotion selection board.  The ERAB approved the correction to the OPR, but denied his request for SSB.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s requests.

It is apparent that an incorrect closeout date was discoverable at the time of the earlier contested report.  The applicant fails to provide any reasonable explanation for waiting five years to come on line and state the closeout should have been 31 May 96 not 12 Jul 96.  It appears that not until promotion dates changed over a year later did applicant contest the closeout date of the report.

In the reaccomplished OPR closing out 31 May 96, submitted with this appeal, there is basically no new information, just a more eloquent narrative.  It appears this report is an attempt to retroactively enhance the applicant’s promotion potential.  The appeals process does not exist to improve promotion potential, but to correct errors and injustice.

The applicant’s rater contends that the applicant’s attendance to DMSC was not included in his OPR closing out 12 Jul 96 because he thought an AF Form 475 was going to be accomplished.  The rules for Training Reports to replace the AF Form 77 did not go into effect until Oct 96.  The applicant completed DMSC in Nov 95.  Although this information was not included in the OPR, the Senior Rater did include it in the applicant’s PRF that was reviewed by the CY98B selection board.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotions, Appointments, & Selective Continuation Branch, AFPC/DPPPO, also evaluated this application in regards to the applicant’s request for promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board and recommends denial.

They concur with the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPE and have nothing further to add.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations by stating that many assertions in them are either outright wrong or misleading.  He provides in depth discussion of six statements that he takes exception to:

	  a.  In regards to AFPC/DPPPE’s determination that the application was not timely filed, the applicant indicates that when the ERAB corrected his May 95 OPR, they did not grant him SSB consideration.  He was advised of this in 1999 and has not previously appealed that decision.  Applicant further indicates that his application is timely under the laws that govern the AFBCMR.

	  b.  The applicant indicates that he disagrees with the statement that he fails to provide any reasonable explanation for waiting five years to file his appeal.  He points out that his commander indicates in his statement that when the applicant was provided his signed OPR in Jan 97, he immediately challenged the error with the Wing Director of Personnel.

	  c.  The applicant further indicates that he disagrees with AFPC/DPPPE’s assessment that the proposed revised report closing out 31 May 96 is an attempt to retroactively enhance his promotion potential.  He points out that he discussed the issue at length with personnel in AFPC/DPPPE, and that they recommended he make the corrections in question as part of his application since he was correcting parts of the OPR anyway.  He further points out that not a single word is changed, but merely interchanges two statements so they are more accurately reflected in the appropriate part of the OPR, thereby preventing the prejudice stemming from their earlier inaccurate position.

	  d.  The applicant indicates that AFPC/DPPPE’s assessment that the AF Form 475 replaced the AF Form 77 in Oct 96 and that he completed the course in Nov 95 actually supports his position in pointing out the prejudicial irregularity in his record.  He states that the critical significance, promotion-wise, of having his attendance to DSMC APMC documented elsewhere in his permanent record is undisputed.  It is also undisputed that PRFs are not part on an individual’s permanent record.  He further indicates that the fact that he did not have an AF Form 475 reflecting completion of DSMC APMC put him at a disadvantage since he likely competed at his 1998 primary lieutenant colonel promotion board against individuals that had completed AF Form 475s in their records due to their completing DMSC APMC in Oct 96 or later due to a policy change.

	  e.  The applicant takes issue with the statement that “although this information was not included in the OPR, the Senior Rater did include it in his P0598B PRF.”  The fact that his attendance to DMSC APMC was not recorded anywhere in his permanent record, but reflected in his PRF created an inconsistency between his permanent record and PRF.  These casts doubt over whether he ever attended a DMSC course.  He states that he has been advised during promotion briefings and by individuals that have set on boards that any inconsistency between the PRF and permanent record is resolved with reference to the record.  The applicant also addresses issues with the statement that “the applicant’s rater contends that DMSC was not included in his Jul 96 OPR because he thought an AF Form 475 was going to be accomplished.  The rules for Training Reports to replace AF Form 77 did not go into effect until Oct 96.”  The applicant points out that his commander references the policy change in his letter, not because of the exact date it took place, but to show there was a high probability he competed at his promotion board with individuals who had completed DMSC APMC classes after the policy change.

	  f.  Finally, the applicant disagrees with AFPC/DPPPE’s summary statement “The applicant has not substantiated the contested reports were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.”  He states that it was his rater’s responsibility to know whether an AF Form 77 or 475 was the correct means of ensuring training such as DSMC APMC was properly reflected in his records.

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 primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that the applicant’s commander states that there was no appropriate reason for the applicant’s OPR to have closed out a month and a half after the correct date, yet he does not clearly account for why it did.  The applicant also contends that the change in closeout date effectively caused him to have one less report for the CY98B promotion board to evaluate, thus causing his full and complete record not to be evaluated.  We do not find this argument credible since the CY98B promotion board convened on 1 Jun 98 leaving one day from a closeout date of 31 May 98 for the applicant’s report to be processed and on file.  Based on Air Force regulatory guidance, this is totally unrealistic.  Further, in reviewing the dates of the successive promotion boards that considered the applicant, we do not find any disadvantage that was caused by the closeout dates of his OPRs.  Therefore, we find no 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 issues 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 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Aug 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 27 Aug 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 01.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 25 Sep 01.