ADDENDUM TO 
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02718

						COUNSEL:  NO

	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board reconsider his two previous requests to correct his record of performance, specifically:

1. Remove and replace the intentionally misleading Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 25 Apr 96 through 24 Apr 97 (Exhibit P, pages 1-2) that left out significant accomplishments and achievements with one rewritten by the additional rater who was the additional rater for 8 of the 12 month reporting period (Exhibit P, pages 3-4); 

2. Remove and replace Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) written and based on the misleading and fraudulent OPR, specifically, 

a. Replace his P0598B PRF (Exhibit P, page 5) with the corrected PRF previously submitted (Exhibit P, page 6);

b. Replace his P0599A PRF with a corrected PRF (dated 25 Feb 02) (see Exhibit P, page 7, for original PRF);

c. Replace his P0599B PRF with a Definitely Promote (DP) PRF, incorporating the senior rater’s 26 Aug 16 desire (see Exhibit P, page 8, for original PRF). In rebuttal, the applicant modifies this PRF correction for the P0599A board instead of the P0599B board.  

3. Either direct promotion or, after correction of the record, have these corrected records (corrected OPR and PRFs) meet each or all supplemental promotion boards.  

4.  In rebuttal, correct the HQ Air Force Doctrine Center command level in his record of performance to “H2.”

5. In rebuttal, once promoted, continued to 28 years of active duty.  

RESUME OF THE CASE:

On 21 Jul 03 and on 3 May 07, the Board considered and denied his request for correction and reconsideration of military records submitted by the applicant.  The Board took notice of the applicant's complete submissions and his rebuttals in judging the merits of the cases; however, found no evidence that the applicant had been a victim of an error or injustice and found the applicant provided no evidence which would lead them to believe the applicant was entitled to the removal/replacement of his OPR/PRFs and subsequent supplemental promotion consideration.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original requests and the rationale of the earlier decisions by the Board, see the AFBCMR Letters and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit J.

On 1 Aug 17, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request.  He again contends the Apr 97 closeout OPR was written in reprisal in an attempt to prevent the applicant from testifying against the additional rater who was later convicted and accepted an Article 15 for the very actions the applicant reported.  Five separated general officer investigations concluded the Apr 97 OPR was fraudulent and intentionally written as reprisal.  The Board’s previous two denials were arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by the facts.  In his submission, he provides correspondence, dated 22 Aug 16, from two of his previous senior raters and Management Level Review (MLR) president reiterating his support of the re-accomplished PRF and recommends again that the applicant’s PRF be voided and the corrected PRF the senior rater prepared be entered into his official record and considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends partially granting the applicant’s request to correct his OPR and two PRFs indicating there is evidence of an error or an injustice.  Specifically, AFPC/DP2SPE recommends the Board substitute the Apr 97 close-out OPR furnished by the applicant, contingent the report is signed by the rater and concurrence is marked in sections VII and VIII, and replace the P0598B PRF (contingent on the OPR) and the P0599A PRF corrected as a “Definitely Promote” and a new line 9 stating, "Top 5% - National War College, Bomb Squadron Commander then senior leadership – Definitely Promote."  IAW the governing Air Force Instruction (AFI 36-2406, para. Al.5.9.), alleged discrimination or unfair treatment can be proven by officials in the rating chain or other credible sources who have firsthand knowledge of the discrimination.  The applicant’s senior rater's statement appears to substantiate the allegations of unfair treatment towards the applicant and should be considered as supporting documentation in this new request.  Moreover, as the information presented appears to be creditable, authorizing changes to the additional rater should be reevaluated.  The AFI further states, the substitute report should be signed by the evaluators who signed the original report.  Only for extremely compelling reasons may the original evaluators be removed from the substitute.  In this situation it appears to be appropriate to change the Additional Rater in the substitute OPR.  Nevertheless, it is important to note the report remains invalid as it is missing a requirement, the rater's signature and concurrence on sections VII and VIII of the AF Form, 707A.

With regard to replacing the PRFs for boards ID P0599A and P05998, the applicant contends his PRF with board ID P0599A to reflect on the last line as follows: "Top 5% - National War College, Bomb Squadron Commander then senior leadership - Definitely Promote," as well as changes to PRF P0599B, to correct the overall recommendation to "Definitely Promote.”  Nevertheless, the member's senior rater/Management Level Review (MLR) president contradicted the applicant’s request stating his assessment is that the applicant's relative position during the second cycle would have been far higher and well among those he awarded a “Definitely Promote.”  Therefore, the senior rater recommends correcting the existing PRF to an overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote” as well as changing the last line of Section IV on the PRF.  Additionally, the senior rater stated the supporting documentation provided by other general officers and himself should be sufficient information to correct the OPR and the PRFs contested, to include the replacement of the inaccurate PRF, which he attached, awarding the applicant a "DP" for Board P0599A.  AFPC/DP2SPE considered applicant's request to correct the overall promotion recommendation of DP for PRF P0599B as a written oversight and considered it as P0599A.  Therefore, AFPC/DP2SPE focused on the corrections of PRF with board ID P0599A.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SPE evaluation is at Exhibit L.

AFPC/DP2SP recommends partially granting the applicant’s request for supplemental consideration indicating there is evidence of an error or an injustice.  Specifically, AFPC/DP2SP recommends SSB consideration by the CY98B Lt Colonel CSB with the replaced OPR, closing out 24 Apr 97 and the corrected PRF as long as the applicant provides the signed OPR as stated in the HQ AFPC/DP2SPE advisory.  We also recommend approval for SSB consideration by the CY99A Lt Colonel CSB with the corrected OPR and upgraded PRF and SSB consideration by the CY99B, CY00A and CY01B Lt Colonel CSB boards due to the replaced OPR.  

However, AFPC/DP2SP recommends denying the applicant’s request for a direct promotion.  Both Congress and DoD have made clear their intent that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of Special Selection Boards (SSBs).  When many good officers are competing for a limited number of promotions, it is extremely competitive.  Without access to all the competing records and a review of their content, we believe sending approved cases to SSBs for remedy is the fairest and best practice.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SPE evaluation is at Exhibit M. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes two errors still present in the two advisory opinions: 1) requiring he obtain the discredited rater’s signature; and 2) opposing the direct promotion.  

With regard to obtaining the signature, the applicant argues the rater was part of the conspiracy and cannot revoke his previous fraudulent OPR without facing UCMJ action.  The Board can either direct AFPC to lift the rater’s previous signature and place it on the submitted OPR or direct the block be singed “ORIGINAL SIGNED.”  To require him to obtain the rater’s signature, whom three general officers stated is a discredited officer, is unjust.  

As for the direct promotion, once the OPR and PRFs are corrected and entered into his record, he should be directly promoted by the Board and continued to 28 years of active duty service.  The Board is justified because promotion rates for a pilot with in-residence Intermediate Service School, are over 99 percent.  With a DP, the rate rises to 100 percent.  

In closing, the Board should remove and replace the OPR and both PRFs (P0598B and P0599A) as suggested by the general officers; and, either direct promote or direct Special Selection Boards.  Furthermore, he requests to correct the Headquarters Air Force Doctrine Center (HQ AFDC) command level in his record of performance to “H2.”

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal is at Exhibit O.  

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal we remain unpersuaded the evidence presented demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice with regard to his request for a direct promotion as the Board agreed with AFPC/DP2SP that the more appropriate relief for errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of SSBs.  With regard to his request for extension on active duty for 28 years of service; the Board determined this request was predicated on his selection to lieutenant colonel.  However, should the applicant be promoted to lieutenant colonel by the SSB, the Board believes the appropriate full and fitting relief would be to correct his record to reflect he was retired in the higher grade at the conclusion of three years in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  The Board determined it is more likely than not the applicant would have served for the three years following his pin-on in order to retire in the higher grade; however, any further service credit is purely speculative.  Furthermore, we agree with the previous board decision that the applicant failed to demonstrated reasonable diligence in maintaining his records prior to the promotion board and do not support correcting the applicant’s records to reflect “H2” since the evidence he provides indicates otherwise.  

2.  However, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with regard to his OPR, PRFs, and, in turn, his promotion opportunity to lieutenant colonel.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an injustice.  In this respect, we took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board further finds the applicant was the victim of reprisal as the 24 Apr 97 close-out OPR omitted several significant achievements, thus negatively influencing his PRF and promotion opportunity.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant's records be corrected as indicated below.

3.  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 the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

1. His AF 707A, Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period of 25 April 1996 through 24 April 1997, be declared void; and substituted with the OPR provided by the applicant, further corrected to reflect a statement in section VI, “Original rater relieved of evaluator responsibilities by ACSC Commandant;” and marked “concur” in the appropriate additional rater and reviewer boxes;

2. His AF 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), with board ID P0598B, be substituted with the PRF provided by the applicant; 

3. His PRF with ID P0599A, be corrected to reflect, "Top 5% - National War College, Bomb Squadron Commander then senior leadership – Definitely Promote", under section IV, line 9, as well as a marked overall recommendation of "Definitely Promote" under section IX of the PRF;

4. He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) with the replaced OPR (close-out 24 April 1997) and PRF;

5. He receive SSB consideration by the CY99A Lieutenant Colonel CSB with the corrected OPR and upgraded PRF; 

6. He receive SSB consideration by the CY99B, CY00A, and CY01B Lieutenant Colonel CSBs due to the replaced OPR; and, 

7. If selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a SSB, he subsequently retired in that grade after serving on active duty for three years.  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-002178 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02718 was considered:

	Exhibit J.  Record of Proceedings, dated 3 May 07 and
21 Jul 03 w/ Exhibits A through I. 
	Exhibit K.  Letter from Applicant, dated 1 Aug 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit L.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SPE, dated 4 Jan 18. 
	Exhibit M.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 4 Jan 18.  
	Exhibit N.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jan 18, w/atchs.
	Exhibit O.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jan 18, w/atchs.
	Exhibit P.  Miscellaneous Documents.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.