RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02490
		INDEX CODE:  111.05, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the period 14 July 1989 to 22 June 1990, 23 June 1990 to 31 January 1991, and 1 February 1991 to 31 January 1992, be declared void.

2.	His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the period 31 May 1996 to 30 May 1997, 31 May 1997 to 30 May 1998, and the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) lieutenant colonel selection board be corrected to reflect his correct duty title and that he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the CY98B, CY99A, CY99B, and CY00A Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPRs closing out on 22 June 1990, 31 January 1991, and 31 January 1992 were not written in accordance with AFR 36-10, Officer Evaluation System, dated 1 August 1988.  He states that Chapter 3, paragraph entitled “Rater Overall Assessment” states, “This section provides space for the rater to comment on additional accomplishments related to the unit mission, assess potential based on performance, and make any other comments, explanations, or recommendations.  Chapter 3, paragraph entitled “Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, and VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment” states, “The overall performance and performance based potential remarks are based on the performance of the ratee compared to other officers in the same grade known by the evaluators…”  The three OPRs he’s requesting to be removed do not have rater comments assessing his potential based on his performance in Section VI.  

The duty title for his joint position at the Cruise Missile Support Activity (CMSA) was not very descriptive and didn’t show a breadth of responsibility.  However, this was the duty title given to him by the rater, a Navy 06, and was reflective of the kind of duty title he would have given any other naval officer who was a “Department Head” in a Navy organization.  After his non-selection by the CY98B lieutenant colonel board, with the duty title “Mission Support Officer” on the PRF and top two OPRs his new rater (former rater retired) agreed to change his duty title for his next OPR.  The duty title change was also retroactive to the day he arrived at the CMSA.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, the contested OPRs closing 22 June 1990, 31 January 1991, 31 January 1992, 30 May 1997, 30 May 1998; contested PRF, Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 1 August 2001, and other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B (1 June 1998), CY99A (19 April 1999), CY99B (30 November 1999), and the CY00A (28 November 2000) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.

The applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY01A reflected the duty title of Chief, Cruise Missile Support from 1996 through 1998.

OPR profile since 1995 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

		    *  22 Jun 90              Meets Standards (MS)
		    *  31 Jan 91				(MS)
		    *  31 Jan 92				(MS)
			31 Jan 93				(MS)
			31 Jan 94				(MS)
			31 Jan 95				(MS)
			31 Jan 96				(MS)
			30 May 96				(MS)
		   *#  30 May 97				(MS)

		    *  30 May 98				(MS)
		   ##  19 Jan 99				(MS)
		  ###   1 Jul 99				(MS)
		 ####  30 Apr 00				(MS)
			30 Apr 01				(MS)

* Contested Reports
# Top Reports:  #CY98, ##CY99A, ###CY99B, ####CY00A

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicate that the Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities.  The applicant contends that when he was assigned his position in the joint command, he discussed his duty with his commander/rater, who after listening to the applicant’s concerns, chose to leave the duty title “Mission Support Officer.”  When he retired and the applicant was assigned a new supervisor, the new supervisor not only changed the duty title, but also, according to the application, backdated the effective date.  As the applicant’s rater, he was within his purview to give the applicant the duty title he determined was appropriate.  The new rater may change it; however, the earliest effective date that can be used is the date supervision became effective.  Therefore, the erroneous information is not the duty titles on the OPRs and PRF, but the duty title on the officer pre-selection brief.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial.  They concur with the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE advisory, and those in the memorandum from HQ AFPC/DPAS that indicate changing the duty title was certainly within the new supervisor’s prerogative, the retroactive application of this change is suspect and should not have been approved.  The officer notes he discussed this very issue with his previous supervisor in June 1996, a full year before the first report closed out.  His supervisor decided against changing the duty title.  Apparently determining the current title adequately reflected applicant’s role in his organization and the standards he would use to evaluate applicant’s performance.  Despite his retired status, his former supervisor’s input is a notable omission from this application.  AFPC/DPPPEP further states that they have nothing further to add.  Since those advisories recommend denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 October 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting the OPRs rendered for the period 14 July 1989 to 22 June 1990, 23 June 1990 to 31 January 1991, and 1 February 1991 to 31 January 1992, be declared void.  After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested reports are either in error or unjust.  The applicant contends that his raters did not comment on his performance based potential and this is in violation of AFR 36-10, - (Officer Evaluation System) Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment.  The section provides space for the rater to comment on additional accomplishments related to unit mission, assess potential based on performance, and make other comments, explanations, and recommendations.  The applicant has not provided evidence that the raters were unaware of this guidance.  Rather, it appears they chose not to include any comments about the applicant’s potential on the contested OPRs.  Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we are not convinced that the rating officials did not render accurate assessments of applicant’s performance at the time each report was prepared.

4.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice with regard to the applicant’s contentions that his duty title on his 30 May 1997 and 30 May 1998 OPRs and his PRF prepared for the 1998B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be changed because the rater was in another branch of service and not familiar with Air Force terminology.  The applicant’s former commander chose to leave the duty title “Mission Support Officer” because it reflected the applicant’s role in his organization and the standards the commander would use to evaluate the applicant’s performance.  The applicant’s new supervisor changed the title to Chief, Cruise Missile Support, as was his prerogative, and backdated the effective date.  While, the new rater may change the duty title, the earliest effective date that can be used is the date he became the applicant’s supervisor.  We note that the applicant has not submitted any supporting documentation from the rating chain and has failed to provide evidence showing that the duty title was not accurate during the contested time period.  In view of the above findings, we agree with the opinion and recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

5.	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 issue(s) 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 19 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 October 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 October 2001, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 October 2001.