RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00945

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 13 June 1999 through 31 March 2000 be removed and replaced with a reaccomplished report covering the same period and be given consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) and Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The generation and approval of the OPR in his record during the subject period were performed under extremely prejudicial circumstances.  In January of 2000, a security investigation was opened based upon what he was eventually able to prove were poorly worded security documentation passed through the hands of several individuals and misunderstood/misinterpreted.  The charges, refutation thereof, and the completed package decided in his favor on all counts, is Block 10 attachment 5.

Applicant's complete submissions are attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major with a date of rank of April 1997.

Applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A and CY01B central lieutenant colonel selection boards. 

On 30 November 2001, the applicant submitted an appeal regarding the 31 March 2000 OPR to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). His request was reviewed by the ERAB and determined the evidence does not warrant voiding the report.  The ERAB was not convinced by the applicant's documentation provided to the board. 

OER/OPR profile since 1992, follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

				30 Jan 92	Meets Standards
				30 Jan 93	Meets Standards
				16 Aug 93	Meets Standards
				16 Aug 94	Meets Standards
				16 Aug 95	Meets Standards
			 	16 Aug 96	Meets Standards
				27 Jun 97	Meets Standards
				12 Jun 98	Meets Standards
				12 Jun 99	Meets Standards
			*	31 Mar 00	Meets Standards
		 #	31 Mar 01	Meets Standards

* Contested report
# Top report reviewed by promotion board

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denied.  That office indicates that there is no evidence of error or injustice on the original OPR.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities. The applicant alleges that the rater was unaware of many of his accomplishments during the rating period because the rater did not have the security clearance to observe these accomplishments.  The applicant states, "some details of his accomplishments were later deemed releasable, and are the source of his rater revised opinion of his work.  After careful review, the rater has not included any new accomplishments to the revised OPR; he has merely strengthened the bullets making them "harder hitting" and made a stronger assignment recommendation. Nonselection for promotion is, for many, a traumatic event, and the desire to overturn that nonselection is powerful motivation to appeal.  However, it is important to keep the promotion and evaluation issues separated, and to focus on the evaluation report only.  A simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade or rewrite a report is not a valid basis for doing so.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the DPPPE advisory and have nothing further to add.  They believe that since DPPPE recommends disapproval, an SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the members of his supervisory chain were not in a position to provide a correct evaluation of performance for the period of the OPR in question.  On the one hand, with the action in progress they felt uneasy providing a glowing recommendation of an officer whose record had clearly come into question at the time.  On the other hand, they could not assume his guilt, so the OPR approved for release was one that was noncommittal as to the value of his contribution.  Only with the completion of the security investigation in his favor could they conclude that his opportunity for consideration for promotion was inappropriately damaged by the nature of his evaluations during the process.  He was both denied the PCS that would have put him in a headquarters position (which affects promotion selection) and the opportunity to continue the work on his active programs during the remaining period of the OPR.  The activity his office was involved in from January till his projected PCS date in April would have put him in a position to interact directly with the Directors of the National Security Agency (NSA), the Secretary of the Air Force, and key directors of special programs throughout the DOD and CIA - substantial additional OPR fodder.  The only recourse left to his rating chain in this appeal was to merely strengthen the bullets on his activities preceding the investigation.  The work he should have performed was not possible to evaluate.  Had he PCSd on time to the Pentagon, he would have had enough time there to get yet another OPR from his new duty station reflecting his contribution to a National priority activity.  

He notes in the recommendation from DPPPE that the ERAB denial was based upon the fact that an attempt to make the OPR "harder hitting" is before it becomes a matter of record.  Since the security investigation did not finally conclude and send back all appropriate paperwork until August of the following year, this was obviously impossible.  The members of his rating chain all believed that proper submission of his record was not accomplished - the letters from rater and senior rater, and the signature from his endorsing General are all clear evidence of this fact.

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.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  In support of his contention, the applicant provided credible evidence from his rating chain, which had led us to believe that the contested OPR closing out 31 March 2000 did not accurately portray their assessment of his promotion potential.  Given the unequivocal support from the senior Air Force officers involved, and having no plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter, we believe that the contested OPR should be declared void and replaced with a corrected OPR, and that he should be considered by SSB for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Therefore, in view of the above findings, we recommend that his records be corrected 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 to show that:

	a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 13 June 1999 through 31 March 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	b.  The attached OPR, rendered for the period 13 June 1999 through 31 March 2000, be amended to show the report was signed by the rater on 11 May 2000, the additional rater on 12 May 2000, and the reviewer on 21 May 2000; and the report be placed in his records in its proper sequence.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calander Year 2000A (CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for any subsequent boards in which the above correction was not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-00945 in Executive Session on 29 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 11 Mar 02 w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Apr 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 Jun 97.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 02.

                                       

AFBCMR 02-00945 

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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that 

	a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 13 June 1999 through 31 March 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	b.  The attached OPR, rendered for the period 13 June 1999 through 31 March 2000, be amended to show the report was signed by the rater on 11 May 2000, the additional rater on 12 May 2000, and the reviewer on 21 May 2000; and the report be placed in his records in its proper sequence.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calander Year 2000A (CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for any subsequent boards in which the above correction was not a matter of record.

                                                                          

Attachment:
OPR, dated 21 Oct 01