RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01476

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 21 June 1998 through 4 May 1999 be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C, CY99A, and CY00A, central colonel selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR for the period ending 4 May 1999 should have been written by the wing commander and was arbitrarily and inappropriately delegated and downgraded to the vice wing commander.  This sent a clear message to the promotion boards and unjustly influenced the outcome.

In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submits a personal statement.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered extended active duty on 17 February 1976.  and retired after 24 years, 8 months and 14 days of total active service in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

The applicant had five nonselections to the grade of colonel by the CY96B, CY97B, CY98C, CY99A, and CY00A, central colonel selection boards.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile since 1994:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			30 Jun 94		Meets Standards (MS)
			28 Jul 95				MS
			20 Jun 96				MS
			20 Jun 97				MS
			20 Jun 98				MS
			 4 May 99				MS
	*		15 Dec 99				MS

	* Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial. The applicant contends his rater should have been the wing commander because that is whom he reported directly to.  However, the Air Force does not require the designated rater to be the immediate supervisor.  Often, in an effort to ease his workload, the wing commander delegates the rating responsibilities of division chiefs to the vice commander.  This is authorized in accordance with AFI 36-2402, paragraph 3.3.5.  Although they are ultimately responsible to the wing commander for their respective programs, the vice commander monitors the division chiefs' day-to-day activities and provides assessments on their performance and potential.  The reference, given by the applicant, AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.2.5.4 does not apply because there is no deviation from the designated chain and no evaluator was skipped.

The applicant contends on the reports he wrote for his subordinates, the wing signed as the rater's rater.  However, the applicant did not provide the completed reports as evidence or names of the individuals he reported on, to verify his contention.

The applicant contends he did not receive feedback from the vice commander and only informal feedback from the wing commander.  The lack of counseling of feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report (Reference AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.8.).  The ratee shares the responsibility to ensure feedback is accomplished and, if necessary, notifies the rater and the rater's rater when required or requested feedback does not take place (Reference AFI 36-2402, paragraph 2.6.1.).  Also, while documented feedback sessions are required, they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback.  

The applicant had a report close out 15 Dec 99, while filling the same position in the wing.  The rater on that report is also the vice commander; however, the applicant has not challenged the accuracy of the 15 Dec 99 report.  While this point is somewhat moot, it does provide clear evidence that the vice commander was in fact established as the applicant's rater.

The Air Force policy is an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant states he has contacted the wing commander he believes should have written the report; however, his efforts for a new report have been rejected.  Since there is no computer generated documentation or evaluator support, the applicant was not able to prove his contentions.

AFPC/DPPP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concur with the findings in the AFPC/DPPP advisory and since that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.  

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and stated that he believes he exercised due diligence in trying to correct the record.  Following discovery of the errors associated with the OPR in question, and while still on active duty, he contacted his former wing commander on a number of occasions over the course of a year.  His desire, at that time, was to have the OPR rewritten and a corrected version entered into his official record.  Upon being turned down, and by then having retired from active duty, he believed removal of the OPR was his only option and submitted his request.  He therefore asks the AFBCMR grant his request to remove the OPR from his official record.  If that request is granted, it will significantly change his records that met the promotion boards, and request re-competition on the affected 0-6 promotion boards.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contest reports should be voided.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The applicant did not present any credible evidence from his rating chain or other agencies to support his contention of error or injustice.   In absence of the necessary evidence, the OERs are assumed valid and accurate.  We agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket Number 02-02615 in Executive Session on 29 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 15 Aug 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Aug 02
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 02.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 23 Aug 02.

	Panel Chair