RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01183
		INDEX CODE:  131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

a. Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a corrected PRF.

b. The Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) be added to her CY98B Officer Selection Brief (OSB).

c. She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B selection board; or in the alternative, she be promoted to lieutenant colonel  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After the transfer of base-level accounting and finance functions to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) a phased process took place from 1993 to 1998 consolidating offices into operating locations.  The consolidation caused the closure of many organizations.  During the transfer she was personally selected as the Director, Defense Accounting Office (DAO), Hill AFB, UT.  Although she was junior in grade in comparison to her contemporaries, there was full confidence in her ability to handle the complex and demanding responsibilities of consolidating operations and closing the organization.  

In 1996 and 1997, she was awarded a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation in both of her below-the-zone (BPZ) considerations for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  During the 1998 rating period, her supervisors continued to praise her job performance as outstanding.  During the period of January 1995 through February 1998 her team consolidated the extremely complex DAO and closed it.  During this time, her entire supervisory chain either retired or was reassigned.  Her immediate supervisor and additional rater were reassigned in June and July 1997.  Her senior rater of 5 years was reassigned in January 1998 and a new senior rater was assigned.  She deactivated the DAO in February 1998.  She received a copy of her PRF in April 1998 with a Promote (P) recommendation which was inconsistent with her last two evaluations and the fact that her responsibilities had increased.  She began a series of phone calls to her new senior rater for the purpose of reporting the discrepancies in her PRF but her phone calls were never returned.  Because her phone calls were never returned, she was never afforded the opportunity to correct her PRF.  

Her new senior rater acknowledged his error in judgment and corrected the PRF by upgrading her promotion recommendation to a DP.  Her former senior rater provided a letter to provide performance inputs into her PRF.  In his letter he stated that he would have awarded her a DP as he had the two previous years.  AFI 36-2403 states that the writer of a promotion recommendation must have credible knowledge of the ratee's most recent job performance.  Her former senior rater also states "during her primary consideration for lieutenant colonel, she had no one familiar with her career performance to ensure she received the justifiably deserved DP as awarded twice previously.  Undoubtedly this resulted in unfair representation of her at the Management Level Review (MLR) with a P versus a DP."  

She submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) that was first returned without action because she did not provide a statement from her senior rater and MLR President and because she provided unsigned documents.  She satisfied those discrepancies and obtained the letters of support from the senior rater and MLR President.  She resubmitted her appeal to the ERAB and her appeal was denied due to a lack of substantial evidence.

In support of her request, applicant provided documents associated with her ERAB appeals, copies of her original and corrected PRFs, a letter from her CY98B MLR President, a letter from her former additional rater, and letters of support from her new and former senior raters.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data systems reflects that the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 30 Sep 82 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 20 Oct 82.  She was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 23 May 86.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 94.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B (1 Jun 98), CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), and the CY01B (5 Nov 01) central selection boards.  She currently has an established date of separation of 31 Oct 02.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEB reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPEB states that changes to supervisory rating chains are a regular occurrence in the Air Force because personnel retire and/or are selected for reassignment throughout their careers.  However, DPPPEB noted that her "entire supervisory rating chain" did not change.  In fact, her immediate supervisor, as depicted in her August 1997 and August 1998 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), remained her rater for her last two years at Hill AFB.  

She states that because her senior rater began his duties in January 1998, he did not have enough supervision to write her PRF and accurately determine her promotion recommendation. The promotion recommendation process begins 150 days before the central selection board.  Day 150 began the first week of January 1998, the same time he took over senior rater responsibilities.  It was not until day 60 that he was able to complete her PRF.  That 3-month timeframe gave him the same period as all other senior raters in the Air Force to consider eligible officers for promotion recommendations.  He had access to personal knowledge of her performance and met all requirements to serve as the senior rater.  

Her senior rater had 2 eligible officers and had to compete his eligible officers at the MLR for one DP recommendation.  The MLR also had only 2 eligible officers, the same two.  After careful review of each officer's entire record of performance, the DP recommendation was awarded to the other eligible officer.  The fact that she was awarded DPs in her BPZ considerations has no bearing on this appeal.  Eligible pools of officers constantly change due to reassignment, retirements etc.  As such, the "quality level" of officers also changes.  Senior raters must evaluate and compare the performance and future potential based on that performance.  The record of performance must stand on it’s own merit.  An overall recommendation of DP or P can easily change from one promotion board to the next.

In support of her appeal, her senior rater states that "her PRF omitted selection for Senior Service School and command.  It was the intent of both the previous and current DFAS management chain that she was a strong candidate for service school and command".  School and command pushes in a PRF are optional considerations.  DPPPEB noted that in contrast to his statement, a command push was not included in the revised PRF.

Her appeal is unfounded.  The proposed change does not remove any negative information or add positive information.  The senior rater did not identify a material error in the PRF, record of performance, or process that resulted in an erroneous rating.  

The DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed applicant's request and recommends that her request to include the DMSM be time-barred or denied due to a lack of merit.  DPPPO states that the DMSM did not exist at the time the CY98B board convened.  The period of the award was January 1995 to September 1998.  The orders were published on 21 Aug 98 and was not required to be filed in her records until 21 Sep 98, three and a half months after the board convened.  

Regarding her request for direct promotion, DPPPO states that the intent of Congress and DOD is clear that when errors are perceived to ultimately affect promotion, they should be addressed and resolved through the use of SSBs.  Her record clearly does not warrant direct promotion by the AFBCMR, nor does it warrant further SSB consideration.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that her 1998 OPR covers the annual period from 1997 to 1998.  It only reflects job performance for the final 5 months of consolidation and deactivation from August 1997 to February 98.  There is a 10 Apr 98 feedback session indicated on the OPR; however, no feedback session was ever conducted on that date, she was transferred 2 months previously.  What should have been a close-out report is now an annual report in her records.  The inability to document her job performance supports her claim that after her supervisory chain of command departed no one was left to properly document her job performance.

DPEEB states that her senior rater had the same amount of time as all other senior raters on the Air Force to consider eligible officers for promotion.  At first glance it appears so because she was still assigned to DFAS-DE after the workload transferred on 6 Feb 98.  When he arrived in January she was packing over 700 boxes preparing for the movers, the accounting workload had been completed.  This left him no time to have personal knowledge or access personal knowledge of her performance because the accounting related tasks were complete and those individuals familiar with her performance had retired or been reassigned.  Her senior rater stated that he did not have knowledge of her most recent job performance and her former senior rater stated that she had no one familiar with her career performance to ensure she received a justifiably deserved DP recommendation.  

The DAO consolidated its accounting workload on 6 Feb 98.  The tour ended when the mission deactivated and she remained in a "casual status" for 7 months from February to September.  This occurred because her PAS code had not been properly deactivated, thus the close-out OPR and end-of-tour decoration were not accomplished.  If it had been properly deactivated then an OPR shell and a DÉCOR-6 would have been generated.  If the system had worked properly an OPR covering the period August 1997 through February 1998 and the end-of-tour decoration would have met the selection board.  

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement and a timeline of the sequence of events.  Her complete 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 timely filed.

3.   Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant's request that her DMSM be included in the CY98B selection process.  In this respect, the CY98B lieutenant colonel selection board convened on 1 Jun 98.  The inclusive period of the DMSM closed out in September 1998 and the orders were published on 21 Aug 98, both of which occurred well after the selection board had convened. Her contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice in this matter.  

Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of injustice with regard to her request that her PRF prepared for the CY98B lieutenant colonel selection board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.  In support of her contention, the applicant provided credible evidence from her rating chain, to include the Management Level Review (MLR) President, who clearly indicated that her PRF did not portray an accurate assessment of her promotion potential.  Given the unequivocal support from the senior Air Force officials involved, and having no plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter, we believe that the contested PRF should be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.  Accordingly it is our opinion she should receive promotion consideration by SSB for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  We note that the Air Force has indicated that the proposed PRF provided by the applicant contains an administrative error in section VI, Group Size,that should be corrected prior to presentation to the SSB.  Accordingly, we recommend that her records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

5.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98BA) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be declared void and removed from her records and the attached PRF be accepted for file in its place.  

b. The Group Size, in Section VI of the above mentioned PRF be corrected to reflect "2," rather than "N/A."

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the attached PRF.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01183 in Executive Session on 20 Aug 02 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 Form 149, dated 2 Apr 02.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 7 Apr 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 14 Jun 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs

								

AFBCMR 02-00183

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:

		a.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records and the attached PRF be accepted for file in its place.  

		b. The attached PRF be amended in Section VI, Group Size, to reflect "2," rather than "N/A."

	It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, with inclusion of the attached PRF.

Attachment:
Reaacomplished PRF