ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00702
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 February 1999 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report and he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 2000 and 2001 Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) and his appeal was denied.

A similar appeal was  considered  and  denied  by the Board  on 2 July 2002.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.

On 13 March 2003, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration contending that because he was participating in the Exceptional Family Member Program, he suffered workplace harassment and discrimination which resulted in his receiving an inaccurate OPR (Exhibit H).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  In the Board’s initial 
review of the application, it found insufficient evidence that the contested report was an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s performance during the contested time period.  However, based upon the statements from his rating chain, the Board indicated its willingness to reconsider the case provided the applicant submit a reaccomplished report adding only command and ISS recommendations to the rater and additional rater comments.  The applicant apparently was unable to obtain a reaccomplished report with only these changes, and has again requested that the Board review the contested report and render a decision that the report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance and should be replaced with the reaccomplished report on the basis that the additional rater harassed and discriminated against him in the workplace because he was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP).  After an exhaustive review of all the documentation submitted, to include the e-mail messages between the report’s rater and reviewer and the original statements from the rating chain, we are still not persuaded that the applicant has established the report is inaccurate and should be voided and replaced.  In the Board’s opinion, the statements coupled with the reaccomplished report, originally provided in support of the appeal constitute retrospective assessments of the applicant’s performance, apparently written as after-the-fact attempts to enhance the applicant’s promotability.  However, such motivations are not sufficient to support findings that the report itself is erroneous or unjust.  While the rater and additional rater are apparently of the opinion that the wording should be changed on the contested report, neither individual offers any specific information concerning the applicant’s performance that was unknown to them at the time the report was prepared.  In view of the findings that the contested OPR is neither unjust nor inaccurate, we believe it should stand as written.  We would again suggest that the applicant attempt to obtain a reaccomplished report replicating the contested report but which contains the command and school recommendations.  In view of the foregoing, applicant’s request to have the contested report voided and replaced with a reaccomplished report 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00702 in Executive Session on 30 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

				Chair
				Member
				, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Jul 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated
				 13 Mar 03, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2002-00702

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction for 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 to show that:

		a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 February 1998 through 1 February 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	   b. The attached reaccomplished Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 February 1998 through 1 February 1999, be accepted for file in its proper sequence.

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Years 2000 and 2001 Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards and for any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 1 February 1999, was a matter of record.

					

Attachment:
Reaccomplished OPR

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM:	SAF/MR
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Case on 
I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the AFBCMR that the applicant’s requests should be denied.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Years 2000A (CY00A) and 2001B (CY01B) central selection boards.  In a subsequent application to the Board, he contended that the OPR closing 1 Feb 99 was downgraded because he was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP), which violated the intent and spirit of the Family Advocacy Program (FAP).  He further contended that the additional rater used the OPR in determining his assignment availability and abused the OPR review process by coercing the rater.  In support of his request, he provided statements from the rater and additional rater.  The Board considered and denied the appeal, but informed him that if he provided a reaccomplished report with a recommendation for command and Intermediate Service School (ISS) only, they would again review his case.  In the reconsideration request, applicant advises he was unable to obtain the reaccomplished report but was submitting his reconsideration request based on additional evidence.  He stated that due to his participation in the EFMP, he was subjected to workplace harassment and discrimination, resulting in an inaccurate report.  In support of his request, the applicant provides e-mail communication between the rater and the reviewer of the contested report.  The Board reviewed and again denied the appeal reiterating the belief that the OPR was an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance.

The rater indicates that the additional rater had nominated the applicant for command selection; however, the applicant was unable to accept this once-in-a-lifetime command opportunity due to the approved EFMP case.  Shortly thereafter, the contested OPR became due and the sensitivity of the command issue and the additional rater’s frustration with the situation unfolded.  The rater indicates that because of the strong recommendation from the additional rater, she did not include recommendations for command or ISS; and that this omission was based solely on the applicant’s inability to accept the assignment due to the EFMP.

The additional rater advises that since the applicant was unable to relocate for an assignment, he did not feel he could recommend him for an assignment that would require relocation, such as command or ISS.  The context of the contested OPR would have been unknown to a promotion board and the lack of a recommendation for command or ISS may have overly influenced their decision.  The reviewer agrees with the changes made to the report and appreciates the opportunity to correct the situation.

Given the unequivocal support from the rating chain and having no basis to question their integrity, equity dictates that the applicant’s records be corrected as requested.