RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01942
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.01
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In his original DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, the applicant requested that the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 1 Jan 00 through 31 Dec 00 be replaced with a revised report.

The applicant submitted a new DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 03, as part of his response to the Air Force evaluations and makes the following amended requests:

	  a.  The OPR rendered on him for the period 1 Jan 00 through 31 Dec 00 be voided and removed from his records.

	  b.  He be promoted directly to the grade of colonel or in the alternative he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2001A Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards that he was considered but not selected for promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR does not include any of the accomplishments he had during over 100 days of assignment to the Office of the Surgeon General during the reporting period.

His rater and additional rater mistakenly signed the wrong OPR because of the hectic holiday period.  They have provided statements in support of his appeal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 8 Jan 83.  A review of his last ten OPRs indicates overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant filed a similar appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 1 Apr 02.  The ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal on  29 Apr 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to completely void his OPR, but recommends that the applicant be permitted to substitute section IV, “Impact on Mission Accomplishment,” with section IV of the proposed revised report.

Although the applicant previously contended the evaluators were unaware of his accomplishments for the Office of the Surgeon General, he now contends the evaluators, due to the hectic holiday season of 2000, signed the wrong OPR.  However, the applicant has provided the same documentation provided to the ERAB.

Although the entire report has been rewritten, the only new information from the first 101 days in the SG office added to the OPR is in Section IV, lines 1 and 2.  The remaining changes appear to be embellishments on information that was previously known.  Additionally, there does not appear to be any typographical or administrative errors to suggest a draft OPR was erroneously signed and processed.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by requesting that his case be temporarily withdrawn.

The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit E.

Applicant reopened his case by submitting an amended DD Form 149 and is now represented by counsel.  Counsel submits applicant’s case in a 21-page brief with attachments.

Applicant’s counsel provides the background on the events that led to the applicant receiving the contested OPR.  He states that the applicant’s OPR was prepared in a highly expedited manner so that it would be considered by the CY01A Central Colonel Promotion Board.  Consequently, it was not subjected to the normal procedural safeguards and resulted in an erroneous and unjust OPR being filed in the applicant’s record.  This OPR was the top report in the applicant’s record when he was considered for promotion.  The applicant’s raters have provided statements that their failure to include information on the applicant’s performance as Executive Officer to the Air Force Deputy Surgeon General rendered the OPR incomplete and inaccurate.

Counsel provides a summary of the applicant’s performance during his Air Force career with excerpts from past OPRs used to illustrate that the applicant is considered an exceptional officer who has consistently demonstrated outstanding leadership and administrative abilities. Counsel further discusses the events that led to the applicant’s original application to the AFBCMR to replace the contested OPR with a revised report.  Counsel notes that AFPC/DPPP recommended that the applicant’s request to replace the entire report be denied and that the report only be revised to the extent that it include assessments of the applicant’s performance during his time as Executive Officer.  Counsel indicates that this recommended relief is inadequate.  While it would correct the deficiency relating to the applicant’s service as Executive Officer, it would not remedy the deficiencies caused by the raters’ hurried preparation of the OPR and their failure to review and edit the draft OPR in a manner consistent with Air Force directives.

Counsel discusses how the applicant’s contested report violates Air Force policy.  He asserts that the raters violated AFI 36-2406 by having the applicant draft or write any portion of his report.  He further contends that the raters did not exercise due care in fulfilling their obligations to ensure that the OPR was an accurate, fair, and unbiased account of the applicant’s performance.  Counsel notes that AFPC/DPPP states that the applicant did not provide fresh documentation to substantiate his claims that the applicant signed the wrong OPR during the hectic holiday season of 2000.  Counsel contends that to do this would have required the raters to admit to having violated Air Force directives in preparing the OPR.  Though the errors and injustices made by the raters were without malice, they were inconsistent with the spirit and letter of Air Force policy on performance reporting.

Counsel indicates that a proper remedy for the errors and injustices contained in the contested OPR is for the Board to promote the applicant directly to the grade of colonel.  Such relief is fitting where the applicant can demonstrate a strong likelihood that he or she would have been promoted but for an erroneous and unjust OPR.  The applicant’s performance history is virtually without flaw.  Just prior to his primary promotion board, the applicant had received a “Definitely Promote” recommendation while in “below the zone” status.  The erroneous and unjust OPR led to the “Promote” rating the applicant received on his Promotion Recommendation Form for the CY01A promotion board.  Counsel states that it is reasonable that had a correct and proper OPR been signed and entered into the applicant’s record, he would have been selected for promotion.  This gives the AFBCMR ample justification to directly promote the applicant to colonel.  Counsel discusses their alternate request, the applicant’s consideration by SSB, should the Board decide not to directly promote the applicant.  

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting a change in Section IV of the OPR closing 31 Dec 00.  While we note the applicant’s amended request for complete removal of the OPR closing 31 Dec 00, we agree with AFPC/DPPP’s observation that the only new information added to the contested OPR are lines one and two in Section IV.  The remainder of the report appears to have been rewritten simply to enhance the presentation of previously included data.  As such we are not persuaded that the entire report should be removed from the applicant’s record or substituted with the initially provided revised report.  We accept AFPC/DPPP’s recommendation that Section IV of the applicant’s original OPR be substituted with Section IV from the proposed revised OPR.  While not persuaded that the contested OPR was the cause of the applicant’s nonselection for promotion, he does have the support of his rating chain to make changes to the OPR.  As a result of this recommended change, we believe that the applicant should be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for any board that the contested OPR was a matter of record.  Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.  

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant his promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01A Central Colonel Selection Board.  In this regard, the Board observes that officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby many factors are carefully assessed by selection boards.  An officer may be qualified for promotion but, in the judgment of a selection board vested with the discretionary authority to make the selections, may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that he would have been a selectee had his folder reflected the recommended change on the contested OPR, we believe that a duly constituted special selection board applying the complete promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position to render this vital determination; and, that its prerogative to do so should only be usurped under extraordinary circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period        1 January 2000 through 31 December 2000, be amended in Section IV, “Impact on Mission Accomplishment,” by deleting all comments and replacing them with the following:

	-Superior skills produced great results at Air Staff; Medical Programs and Resources Division (AF/SGMM)

	-Insightful knowledge of senior leadership interactions; marvelous transition for new exec to Deputy SG

	-Assumed command and immediately produced outstanding results in several areas of the Medical Group
	 --Cut red tape; created consensus among contracting, CE, and contractors; stalled project back on track

	-Insightful; negotiated with AFPC, produced swift hiring of a critically needed Group Practice Manager

	-Increased squadron pride and identity with a first-ever 43d Medical Support Squadron official emblem

	-Assisted over 250 people at Retiree Appreciation Day understand impact of FY 2000 NDAA legislation

	-Expertly mentored a staff sergeant; produced an outstanding new Medical Service Corps officer accession

	-Furthered Team Pope’s international reputation by helping sponsor the Egyptian team at Rodeo 2000

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001A Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards that this OPR was a matter of record.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-01942 in Executive Session on 5 November 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 Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 17 Jul 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Aug 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 7 Oct 03,
                 w/atchs.

                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2002-01942

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 XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that the Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2000, be, and hereby is, amended in Section IV, “Impact on Mission Accomplishment,” by deleting all comments and replacing them with the following:

		-Superior skills produced great results at Air Staff; Medical Programs and Resources Division (AF/SGMM)

		-Insightful knowledge of senior leadership interactions; marvelous transition for new exec to Deputy SG

		-Assumed command and immediately produced outstanding results in several areas of the Medical Group
		  --Cut red tape; created consensus among contracting, CE, and contractors; stalled project back on track

		-Insightful; negotiated with AFPC, produced swift hiring of a critically needed Group Practice Manager

		-Increased squadron pride and identity with a first-ever 43d Medical Support Squadron official emblem

		-Assisted over 250 people at Retiree Appreciation Day understand impact of FY 2000 NDAA legislation

		-Expertly mentored a staff sergeant; produced an outstanding new Medical Service Corps officer accession

		-Furthered Team Pope’s international reputation by helping sponsor the Egyptian team at Rodeo 2000

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001A Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards that this OPR was a matter of record.

		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency