RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02103

				COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXX

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 9 June 1998 to 8 June 1999 be corrected to reflect the correct duty title, period of report and reason for the report and he receives a Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and upon promotion, he receives all back pay, and time-in-grade benefits due.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The errors in his promotion package for the CY99A Lieutenant Colonel Board made it impossible for the board to fairly consider him for promotion. These errors rippled through the personnel system after his 1998 OPR was filed late and then improperly handled by the records software.  These errors prevented a new (March 1999) OPR being loaded despite a change of station and subsequent change of reporting official, which resulted in his records reflecting an incorrect duty title, Period of Report, and Reason for Report.  Further, his new OPR could not be made part of his promotion package, and there is doubt that the 1998 OPR was not included either.  He believes these errors and omissions were primary reason for his non-selection to lieutenant colonel by the CY99A promotion board despite a glowing promotion recommendation form (PRF).

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a legal brief prepared by his counsel, a personal statement, statements from his rating chain, and copies of his promotion recommendation form, and the contested OPR.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), and CY01B (5 Nov 01) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied a similar appeal because, although a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) report was initiated, there was no evidence to indicate a CRO report was completed.  Additionally, since the rater determines the duty title, the ERAB was not convinced the duty title was erroneous without rater support.

Applicant’s OPR profile since 1994, follows:

	         PERIOD ENDING			EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

				  Meets Standards (MS)
            30 Jun 94                           (MS)
            30 Jun 95                           (MS)
            08 Jun 96                           (MS)
            08 Jun 97                           (MS)
            08 Jun 98                           (MS)
          * 08 Jun 99                           (MS)
         ** 09 Jun 00                           (MS)
            14 May 01                           (MS)

*  Top report on file at time of CY99A selection board.
** Top report on file at time of CY99B selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial and states the applicant contends his rater authored a CRO OPR, but because the computerized personnel system would not permit the shell to be generated, the report was never processed.  When a change to the ratee’s supervisor is updated in the Personnel Data System (PDS) and the previous rater had the appropriate number days supervision, an OPR shell is generated.  Since the rater who signed the proposed Mar 99 CRO report also signed the 8 Jun 99,   8 Jun 00, and 14 May 01 reports, there does not appear to be a change of rater until after 8 Jun 00.  Therefore, the Mar 99 CRO report was invalid and not authorized for file in the Officer Selection Record (OSR), even if it had been completed.

The applicant provided a memorandum from his rater stating the duty title on both the 8 Jun 99 OPR and OSB are incorrect and inconsistent.  The rater has also indorsed a memorandum from the applicant stating the duty title should be “Deputy Program Manager, National Space Communications Program.”  However, a review of the applicant’s key duties, tasks and responsibilities appear to be consistent with the current duty title on the 99 OPR.

DPPP indicates the applicant was not scheduled to receive an annual OPR until 8 Jun 99; therefore, the lack of a report prior to 8 Jun 99 did not put the applicant at a disadvantage when he met the CY99A Central Selection Board (CSB).  Although a draft CRO report closing out Mar 99 was being prepared, since there was no change of rater, the report was not required.  Additionally, the request to change the applicant’s duty title to “Deputy Program Manager, National Space Communications Program” is inconsistent with the applicant’s assigned duties.  

AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the AFPC/DPPP advisory, and had nothing further to add.  Since that advisory recommends disapproval, SSB consideration is not warranted.  

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel reviewed the evaluation and stated that the duty remains an issue--it should accurately reflect the duties and responsibilities of the applicant.  This did not occur.  The “white bread” title appearing on the challenged OPR fails to reflect the cutting-edge job entrusted to this applicant.  Counsel also provided a letter of support from the applicant’s purposed reporting official.

Applicant’s counsel 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 timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting changing  the contested report to reflect a change in the reporting official and to amend the close out date of the report.  Based on the documentation before this Board, it appears that the applicant’s rating chain attempted to have a current OPR on file prior to the convening of the CY99A selection board; however, a report was not required to be prepared nor does the evidence substantiate that the applicant had a change in reporting official.  Therefore, we agree with the comments and recommendation of the Air Force concerning this issue.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, favorable action on his request to have the contested report amended to reflect a change in reporting officials and a change to the close out date of the report is not favorably considered.

4.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice in regard to the accuracy of applicant’s duty on the contested report.  After reviewing the evidence of record, which includes statements from his rating chain, we believe that the duty title on the report in question should be changed.  In this respect, it appears that the applicant performed duties as the Deputy Program Manager for the National Space Communications Program and this should be his correct duty title.  Therefore, we recommend the OPR closing 8 June 1999 be amended and in addition, his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected.  Based on the above corrections to his record, we recommend his corrected report be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY99A selection board.

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 issue(s) 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 AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report, rendered for the period 9 June 1998 through 8 June 1999, be amended to reflect that the duty title in Section III be changed to reflect “Deputy Program Manager, National Space Communications Program.” 

		b.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 1999A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be amended to reflect a duty of Deputy Program Manager, National Spece Communications Program, effective 1 March 1999.

It is further recommended that his records, as amended, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY99A Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02103 in Executive Session on 26 February 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 24 Jun 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 25 Nov 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 Nov 02.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
	Exhibit F.	Applicant’s Counsel Response, undated. 

		Panel Chair