RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00180
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 126.03, 
					 131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), with closeout dates of 1 May 97 and 1 May 98, be removed from his records; and, he receive consideration for direct promotion to colonel by the CY98C (P0698C) central colonel selection board.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The negative stigma associated with the T-3A aircraft used at the Air Force Academy during his tenure as Commander, 557th Flying Training Squadron resulted in mediocre OPRs.  Based on these mediocre OPRs, he was nonselected for promotion to colonel.  Before he took command, he met with the 12th Flying Training Wing and 19th Air Force Commanders and was told very clearly that the aircraft had continuing maintenance problems and that there were concerns about the students’ training syllabus.  Within weeks in the squadron, he confirmed that although dozens of these issues were well documented, many of them had not been acted upon.  Over the next two years, he and his staff continued to alert his superiors--before the fatal training accident of 1997.  The accident and safety investigation boards determined that the squadron’s safety/training programs and his leadership were neither causal nor contributory in any way and the Air Education Training Command (AETC) inspectors lauded his aggressive reporting of maintenance deficiencies.

Given the high visibility of the Academy, the national media not only reported the initial accidents but they also followed up with lengthy articles and even a television segment.  There were also dozens of local newspaper articles in Colorado Springs.  The public pressure on the Academy, AETC, and the Pentagon was intense and did not stop until well after the aircraft was permanently grounded in July 1998 and well after he relinquished command. 

He received two mediocre OPRs and both OPRs made several references to the fatal mishaps, and the “bullets” detailed his commitment to restore faith in the T-3A and its mission, Enhanced Flight Screening Program.  According to a colonel at AFPC who provided his non-select counseling, he was not promoted due to the additional rater’s reference to the “two Class A mishaps” and the weak last lines in Section VI and VII in the 97-98 OPR.  Additionally, references were made in the rater and additional rater blocks to the mishaps in the 96-97 OPR.  Based on this overwhelming evidence, he believes an injustice is undeniable in his case.  

In support of his request applicant provides a supportive statement from the unit maintenance officer; documents and news articles regarding the T-3A; a copy of his duty history; and copies of OPRs and Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service as 30 May 1979.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank and an effective date of 1 March 1994. He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C, CY99A, CY00A and CY01B colonel selection boards.  

The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

		PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			 1 May 01		MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
			 1 May 00		MS
			 1 May 99		MS
			*1 May 98		MS
			*1 May 97		MS
			 1 May 96		MS
			14 Jun 95	    TRAINING REPORT
			 2 May 94		MS
			 2 May 93		MS

* - Contested Reports

During the contested rating periods, the applicant received two AF Form 709’s, Promotion Recommendation Form, for the P0697B and P0698C Selection Boards and received an overall recommendation of “Promote.”  Additionally, the applicant’s record indicates he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), First Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period 19 July 1996 - 13 July 1998, while a Squadron Commander, 557th Flying Training Squadron, United States Air Force Academy, MSM for the period 1 January 1986 - 29 December 1987 while assigned to the Military Airlift Command, Scott AFB, Aerial Achievement Medal for the period 12 October 1990 - 30 September 1991 while a C-5 Aircraft Commander in the Persian Gulf region and a Joint Service Commendation Medal for the period 12 February 1988 - 31 May 1990.   

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied.  DPPP states that the applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports nor under the governing instruction at that time, AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System.  DPPP states the applicant provided evidence to support his contention that the T-3A aircraft received negative publicity.  However, he did not provide evidence his evaluators were biased. 

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APFC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO states that since the application cannot be time-barred, the test to be applied is not whether the applicant discovered the errors within three years, but whether, through due diligence, they were discoverable.  DPPPO states that the applicant does not provide a concrete explanation for filing late.  DPPPO states that they hope the AFBCMR will consider direct promotion only in the most extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration has been deemed to be totally unworkable.  Furthermore, DPPPO states, that although the applicant provided evidence to support his contentions that the T-3A aircraft received negative publicity, he did not provide evidence his evaluators were biased.  Thus his case does not warrant direct promotion or SSB consideration. 

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded by indicating that the “time-bar” recommendation is not applicable in his case.  He states that the reason he waited to file was because if he had asserted that he was given poor OPRs because the aircraft was flawed at the time the OPRs were prepared, it would have been only a statement of his “opinion” with nothing to back it up.  The court findings supported what he knew to be true — - the T-3A aircraft was flawed. 

Applicant disagrees with DPPPO’s recommendation that his case does not warrant a direct promotion and that he pursue an SSB.  With two voided OPRs, he sincerely questions whether or not an SSB would fairly consider his record and promote him without knowing how he performed on the myriad of squadron commander duties.  Applicant states there is no way to get a fair chance on an SSB and that is why he requested a direct promotion.  
Applicant disagrees with the assertion that he failed to provide evidence of evaluator bias.  If the evaluators were not biased, then what resulted in his non-selection to 0-6?  He requests an examination of the board statistics and a calculation of the odds that a record of his quality would not be selected.  He states there is nothing in his record before or after his non-selection that indicated that he was a top performer who “regressed.”  Applicant states that his superiors tried to downplay the crashes while highlighting how he handled the extremely difficult circumstances with the grieving wives and parents.  His superiors failed to mention in his OPRs that he warned several people, to include them, on multiple occasions of the dangers of the aircraft for fear that it might suggest negligence on their part.

Applicant’s submission 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 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 error or injustice.  After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded that the contested Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) are inaccurate depictions of the applicant’s performance and demonstrated potential for the periods in question.  We have noted the applicant’s contentions concerning the tenor of the comments in the contested reports and his allegations of bias on the part of the evaluators.  However, while the applicant may believe this is the case, there is nothing in the evidence provided which would lead us to believe that the OPRs in question are the result of bias or that they were prepared with any motivation on the part of the evaluators other than to report their assessments of the applicant’s performance.  To the contrary, while others may have written the reports differently, we could discern nothing overtly negative or even questionable in the evaluators’ comments.  We have noted the supportive statement provided for our review and, while the author’s comments are enlightening with respect to the historical events during that period of time, they do not provide support for the applicant’s assertions concerning the intentions of the evaluators or the alleged shortcomings of the reports.  We note that, in the rating process, it is the responsibility of evaluators to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly, and to the best of their ability.  Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that the evaluators abused their discretionary authority, that the report is technical flawed, or that the evaluators comments are based on inappropriate considerations.  In the absence of such evidence, the applicant’s request that the contested reports be voided is not favorably considered.

4.  In view of the above and in the absence of any evidence that the record placed before the CY98C Colonel Selection Board was erroneous or misleading, we have no basis to find that the applicant’s consideration for promotion by that board was unfair or inequitable.  Therefore, the applicant’s request for promotion to colonel is denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 10 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 31 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Mar 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 02.