RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03503
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), with a close-out date of 6 May 01 and his amended Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to major.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive a fair shake at the major promotion board for two reasons; the board should have been in a position to consider his OPR with a close-out date of 6 May 01 and his PRF was deficient because it did not provide the grade or service branch of his senior rater.  In addition, his PRF incorrectly referred to him as a “first tour USAF Chaplain.”  

In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement from his current senior rater; OPR tracking sheet, OPR closing 6 May 2001, and the original and amended PRFs.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reveals that on 2 April 1989, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, Chaplain Candidate.  After his successful completion of the required training, he was assigned to duties as a Chaplain in the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard until 2 January 1997, when, having been discharged from the Air National Guard, he was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty in the grade of captain, with a date of rank of 8 August 1993.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY01A central major selection board, which convened on 18 June 2001. 

Applicant’s OPR profile since promotion to the grade of captain is as follows:

		PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

			31 Aug 89(NON-EAD)	TRAINING REPORT
			27 SEP 90		TRAINING REPORT
			1 SEP 89 – 26 MAY 91		NO REPORT RENDERED
			09 APR 92	MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
			09 APR 93			MS
			09 APR 94			MS
			09 APR 95			MS
			09 APR 96			MS
			10 APR 96 – 1 JAN 97		NO REPORT RENDERED
			01 AUG 97 (EAD)			MS
			01 AUG 98			MS
			01 AUG 99			MS
			06 MAY 00			MS
			06 MAY 01*			MS

* - OPR for SSB consideration.  This report was indorsed by the rater and additional rater on 6 May 2001, and by the reviewer on 11 September 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be partially granted.  DPPP states that the applicant’s OPR closing 6 May 01 was not required for the 18 Jun 01 central selection board.  DPPP states that in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, “OPRs on EAD officers are due to MAJCOMs no later than 60 days after closeout.”  Therefore, the OPR in question was not required to be in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) until 5 Jul 01 and the OPR closing 6 May 00 made his record complete for the 18 Jun 01 CSB.  DPPP further states that the proposed PRF for inclusion was totally re-written, and there is no supportive documentation provided by the management level review president.  Appeals to rewrite Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, simply to include different, but previously known or documented accomplishments will not be approved, states DPPP.  Additionally, DPPP states that the applicant’s request for correction was for Section X, Senior Rater, to include the rank and branch of service of the senior rater and in Section IV, line 9 from, “first tour USAF Chaplain” to “second active duty tour.”  DPPP recommends denial for an SSB based on the OPR not being available for the CY01A CSB.  DPPP recommends approval to correct the minor administrative error in Section X of the PRF of record, to include the senior rater’s grade and branch of service.   

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO states that the applicant has one nonselection to the grade of major and since AFPC/DPPP recommends denial on the OPR inclusion for an SSB; therefore, SSB consideration is not warranted.  DPPPO further states that while the request to add the missing Senior Rater information was approved by DPPP, these administrative changes do not warrant consideration by an SSB.  

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the advisory opinions and argues that the basis for his appeal was not one of “requirement” but rather of “necessity” to more fairly compete with other captains for selection to major and bases his argument on governing Air Force directives.  He further states that all relevant information regarding an officer’s performance, to include most recent performance, should be taken into account when considered for promotion.  Applicant states that material error in his PRF is evident and neglects “very important” performance factors as indicated in AFPAM 36-2506, You and Your Promotions - The Air Force Officer Promotion Program.  He further states that the writer of the PRF does not use information available to him, or does not have all pertinent information available to him to include a pending OPR, leaving the central selection board to evaluate a PRF for a captain whose “very important” performance has been left off the evaluation form.  Applicant summarizes his rebuttal by recommending an SSB be given the opportunity to review his package with the new PRF. 

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, 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 with respect to the applicant’s request for SSB consideration to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. 

    a.  The applicant asserts that the absence of OPR closing 6 May 2001 was an error and therefore, he should receive an SSB with the inclusion of the report in his selection record.  We disagree.  While it may be that local policy required the OPR be filed in his unit records within 30 days, the governing AFI provided that the contested report was not due to file in the officer selection record until 5 July 2001.  In fact, the report was not signed by the evaluators until August/September 2001, well after the selection board in question had adjourned.  We are unpersuaded by the evidence provided, including the supportive statement by the applicant’s senior rater, that the evaluators intended that the report be expedited for entry into his selection record on or before 18 June 2001.  In view of the above, we find no basis on which to favorably consider changing the date the OPR in question was filed in his selection record and for consideration by an SSB on this basis.

    b.  The applicant requests substitution of a recaccomplished PRF in place of his PRF prepared for consideration by the CY 01A Majors Selection Board.  The reasons asserted by the applicant for this request are that his senior rater’s rank and branch of service were not included in Section X of the report (the officer’s signature block) and because, in the body of the report, he is incorrectly referred to as a “first tour USAF Chaplain.”  However, in addition to the correction of the former error and the deletion of the latter, the information contained in the promotion recommendation section of the reaccomplished report is a complete revision of the original report.  No explanation for this revision has been provided by either the senior rater or the applicant.  We are therefore left with the impression that the rewritten PRF represents a retrospective judgment of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential by his senior rater which does not provide an appropriate basis for the removal of the contested PRF and the substitution of the rewritten report.  Accordingly, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence showing that the senior rater did not have access to adequate information on which to base his assessment at the time he prepared the PRF in question, we have no basis on which to favorably consider the applicant’s request for removal of the PRF of record and substitution of the reaccomplished report.

    c.  As to the applicant’s contentions regarding the phrase, “first tour USAF Chaplain” and the absence of his senior rater’s rank and branch of service, since these matters are errors, we believe they should be corrected by deleting the reference to the applicant as a first tour Chaplain and adding the senior rater’s rank and branch of service.  However, we do not believe replacing the deleted phrase with one stating that the applicant was on his second tour of active duty would, in any way, be beneficial to the applicant, especially since such a substitution was not specifically recommended by the senior rater.  We are not persuaded that the foregoing changes to the contested PRF caused the applicant’s records to be so erroneous or misleading that the duly constituted selection board was unable to make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability in relation to his peers.  In other words, the impact of the above-cited errors oh his promotion opportunity was, in our view, harmless.  Therefore, we do not find these corrections, alone, warrant favorable consideration of his request for an SSB.

    d.  Accordingly, in view of the above, the applicant’s records should be corrected only to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected by altering the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Central Major Selection Board as follows:

	a.  Delete “- met the challenge of a first-tour USAF Chaplain” from the last line in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation.

    b.  Add “, Colonel, USAF” to the first line in Section X, Senior Rater.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 June 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 14 Feb 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 15 Mar 02.

                                   

AFBCMR 01-03503

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                       , be corrected by altering the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Central Major Selection Board as follows:

		a.  Delete “- met the challenge of a first-tour USAF Chaplain” from the last line in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation.

		b.  Add “, Colonel, USAF” to the first line in Section X, Senior Rater.