RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

	INDEX CODE  111.01  111.03  111.05  131.01
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01151
		
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be reaccomplished, and he be given promotion and in-residence professional military education (PME) consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for that board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not discover the rater’s bias towards him until after the report was prepared and the rater had rendered an unfair assessment of his performance. The OPR is unfairly prejudicial because it resulted in the omission of PME and assignment recommendations. This reflected a downgrade from all previous OPRs. The rater provided multiple unverifiable reasons, unrelated to performance, to explain the omission. As shown in numerous AF instructions, pamphlets and OPR/PRF writing guides, PME and assignment recommendations are the universally regarded method raters use to convey to selection boards the potential of an officer to serve in the next higher grade. Omission of these recommendations sends a negative signal. In the highly competitive environment for selection to lieutenant colonel, an omission of this magnitude contributes significantly to nonselection for promotion. Also, contrary to what is indicated on the OPR, performance feedback was not conducted and the number of days of supervision was less. He provides supporting statements from individuals, including the additional rater and reviewer, attesting to the rater’s prejudice. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major. During the period in question, he was the Director, Advanced Programs, with ----. He was subsequently assigned to the Directorate of Operational Requirements, ----.

He has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), and the CY01B (5 Nov 01) promotion boards. The CY99A PRF reflects an overall recommendation of “Promote.”  The senior rater of the CY99A PRF had 11 in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) officers and awarded four “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendations. An OPR profile follows:

		PERIOD ENDING		EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

		28 Feb 97		Meets Standards
		28 Feb 98		Meets Standards
		24 Oct 98		Meets Standards (CY99A top report)*
		24 Oct 99		Meets Standards
		17 Jul 00		Meets Standards (CY00A top report)
		17 Jul 01		Meets Standards (CY01B top report)

*Contested report

The applicant submitted a similar appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under AFI 36-2401 (provided at Exhibit A). The ERAB denied his appeal on 7 Apr 00, indicating that PME and job recommendations are not required comments on reports and their omission did not prove the existence of a personality conflict.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes that while there is no guidance prohibiting the use of PME or assignment recommendations, there is also no guidance making them mandatory.  A rater is not biased against an individual simply because he chooses not to include a PME or assignment recommendation. Although both the additional rater and reviewer state they were aware of the importance of PME and assignment recommendations, they signed the OPR without the recommendations. It is logical to assume they questioned the lack of these recommendations when the contested report was initially prepared and were satisfied with the answers prior to signing. This point is somewhat moot, however, since even if they did question it, the rater was under no obligation to change his assessment.  The applicant, additional rater and review state they were unaware of the rater’s bias until he refused to support the appeal to include the recommendation. The only evidence provided to substantiate the rater’s bias is the lack of PME and assignment recommendations on the OPR and the rater’s refusal to include them at this time. Denial is recommended. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The HQ AFPC/DPPPO concurs with DPPPE’s advisory, has nothing further to add and recommends that SSB consideration be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends the evidence he provided proves two conditions existed at the time the contested report was written. First, as stated by the rater, the OPR was written under conditions that were contradictory with Air Force instructions on the preparation of OPRs. Second, the evidence demonstrates the rater held a bias.  Either condition is sufficient to demonstrate the report is unjust and should be voided. He specifically addresses the evaluations’ arguments.  HQ AFPC concluded that the lack of the pertinent recommendations was a deliberate omission on the rater’s part. In which case, they must therefore conclude that the rater’s claim about misunderstanding or being misinformed of --- policy is untrue and they must further agree the rater manufactured his reasons for the omission to mask a bias.  In conclusion, the advisory opinions did not consider all the available evidence to prove the report was unjust. He asks the Board to disregard the AFPC recommendations and grant his appeal.  He provides a cover letter and a reaccomplished PRF from the senior rater for SSB consideration.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE provided additional comments, noting that the PRF provided by the applicant is incomplete. It does not indicate an Overall Recommendation in Section IX (Definitely Promote, Promote, or Do No Promote This Board).  Changing Section IV requires concurrence of both the senior rater and the management level review (MLR) president.  The senior rater will need to demonstrate there was a material error in the PRF, in the record of performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF or in the process by which the PRF was crafted.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit G.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO provided an evaluation, indicating that since HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial of the contested OPR, there is no basis to warrant SSB consideration at this time.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts in his 10 Jan 03 rebuttal that HQ AFPC/DPPPE confirmed the significance of PME and assignment recommendations in an OPR, reinforcing the view that omissions are significant and send a clear message to anyone preparing PRFs or board members considering candidates for promotion. The principle reason for the appeal is to strike the contested report from the official record to remove the negative information. This would be a substantive change to the record of performance deemed to have an impact on PRF content and rating.  He indicates the PRF will be returned to the senior rater and the complete PRF with letters confirming the concurrence of the senior rater will be forwarded to the AFBCMR within 4-6 weeks.  The current PRF in the appeal should be withdrawn pending receipt of the completed PRF and letters. 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit J.

The applicant was advised by the AFBCMR Staff on 31 Jan 03 and again on 11 Feb 03 that, since his case was approaching the 10-month Congressionally mandated deadline, he needed to either expedite submitting the supporting letters and reaccomplished PRF or withdraw his case until these documents were obtained. Otherwise, the AFBCMR had no recourse but to forward his case for the Board’s consideration and final resolution.  

On 19 Feb 03, the senior rater and MLR president forwarded statements to the AFBCMR, along with a reaccomplished PRF. The overall recommendation is “Promote.”  Both believe the contested OPR is unjust, should be removed and the applicant receive SSB consideration with the reaccomplished PRF provided.

The senior rater and MLR president statements, as well as the reaccomplished PRF, are at Exhibit K.

_____________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice to warrant voiding the contested OPR and granting SSB consideration for the CY99A board with the reaccomplished PRF provided.  The applicant and his rating chain originally were unaware of any bias on the rater’s part.  When the applicant confronted the rater about the lack of PME and assignment recommendations, the rater told him that a change in an agency policy allegedly precluded his including such comments.  This was subsequently determined to be untrue. However, we note that the additional rater did include a PME and assignment recommendation. The overwhelming support from the additional rater, the reviewer, and the MLR president, makes the rater’s position and motive somewhat suspect. Since the rating chain asserts the OPR adversely impacted the PRF, and a rewritten PRF is provided, we are persuaded that the contested report should be voided so as to offset any possibility of an injustice.  Its voidance and the willingness of the evaluators to submit a reaccomplished PRF justify the applicant being afforded SSB consideration for the CY99A board, and this we so recommend. The applicant’s request for PME candidacy determination will be part of the SSB process.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1 March 1998 through 24 October 1998, be declared void and removed from his records.

     b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, rendered for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be declared void and replaced with the PRF provided, which reflects “Send this future commander to Joint SSS!” as the last statement in Section IV. 

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for all boards in which the 24 October 1998 OPR was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01151 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Nov 02.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Dec 02.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Dec 02.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, 10 Jan 03.
   Exhibit K.  Letters, Senior Rater & MLR President, 
                  dated 5 & 19 Feb 03, w/atch.

AFBCMR 02-01151

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 to show that:

	     a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1 March 1998 through 24 October 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	     b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, rendered for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with the PRF provided, which reflects “Send this future commander to Joint SSS!” as the last statement in Section IV.

	It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for all boards in which the 24 October 1998 OPR was a matter of record.

                                                               

Attachment:
Reaccomplished PRF