RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02815
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 25 Feb 01 be replaced with a corrected OPR.

2.  Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) colonel selection board be replaced with a corrected PRF.

3.  She be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY01B board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR and PRF contained a duty title that was incorrect, misleading, and sent a negative signal to the board members.  A counselor at AFPC advised her that the duty title "Squadron Section Commander" was reserved for junior officers and junior captains and did not reflect a level of responsibility for a lieutenant colonel meeting a colonel board.  Further, her job descriptions do not include the full level of responsibility she held in her position.  Because the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Dean of the Faculty is a non-traditional organization, the duty titles should have been more closely tailored to her actual responsibilities, authority, and span of control.  Her duty title should have been changed when she assumed the responsibilities of the Deputy for Operations after his retirement.  The duty title was corrected on her subsequent OPR.  In addition, the stratification statement (#1 of 90+) on both the OPR and PRF, although strong, does not inform the board of the number of officers in the competitive group.  She was actually number 1 of 10 officers in-the-zone (IPZ) and received the number 1 Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.  The officer receiving the number 2 DP was promoted.  

It was noted that the length of time she spent at the USAFA was another major factor in her nonselection because it appeared as if she was homesteading even though she held a number of different jobs.  As a sequential Tour Officer, AFPC assigned her to the faculty for several sequential tours.  This selectively managed program gives the USAFA its senior military PhD faculty.  The USAFA does not have a pool of military officers with PhDs to draw from for its senior faculty.  Further, as the senior African-American faculty member, with a PhD, on a faculty having less than 3 percent African-Americans, she served as a role model and mentor to faculty and cadets.  Thus, her length of time at the USAFA was in the best interest of the USAFA and the Air Force and it is an injustice for her to be penalized for supporting the USAFA.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, a copy of the contested and corrected OPRs, documents associated with her Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal; Air Force Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet; Air Force Form 3994, Recommendation for Decoration, Deployment/Contingency Operations; and, a copy of an email.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 6 Jun 80.  She was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 97.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board that convened on 3 Dec 01.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASA recommends denial of her request.  DPASA states that she was not appointed to the section commander position through an AFPC competitive selection board.  There may have been a screening process at the USAFA for her appointment but DPASA has no knowledge of that.  Additionally, she was not advised to remain at the USAFA by AFPC, each extension was a request from the USAFA.  She was counseled in 1994 that extended tours at the USAFA could potentially impact her promotion and career progression yet she elected to continue pursuing assignments there.  She signed a volunteer statement indicating she understood these implications.  The DPASA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial.  DPPP states that although her rater supports changing the duty title on both the OPR and PRF, he does state "However, I felt that a 'Squadron Commander' position would clearly be seen (and was described) as a very responsible 0-5/0-6 position, so I did not change her duty title."  Therefore, the request to change her duty title appears to be retrospective and based on her nonselection for promotion, not any real error or injustice.  The squadron commander owns both the mission and the people in their entirety, while the squadron section commander is normally responsible solely for the people.  It appears that the job description provided accurately describes a squadron section commander; no different from those found at most major commands, field operating agencies, and direct reporting units.  AFPC counselors are not selection board members and cannot possibly know what the board members considered when reviewing records.  However, based on years of personnel experience, they can make educated guesses and compare the nonselect records with the selects.  The information imparted to individuals not selected for promotion is merely the opinion of the individual counselors and not a conclusive reason for nonselection.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities.  The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings and recommendations of DPASA and DPPP and recommends denial.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The USAFA is a unique installation and not all assignments are filled as they may be for more traditional Air Force units.  Because of the requirement for certain academic credentials it would not be possible to select Dean of Faculty senior leaders through the AFPC competitive selection board process.  Her selection was through a competitive process as noted by the Dean's statement on her 25 Feb 99 OPR which states, "I selected her to be my Squadron Section Commander."  With regard to an extended tour impacting an officer's chances for promotion, applicant states that this definitely applies to officers being considered for promotion to colonel with a "Promote" (P) recommendation.  The probability of an officer on an extended tour at the USAFA with a "P" recommendation is well below Air Force average.  She had a "DP" recommendation, and since no officer on an extended tour at the USAFA with a "DP" has ever been denied promotion, she had a reasonable expectation to believe the extended tour was not a detriment to her career.  

She never asked AFPC for advice regarding remaining at the USAFA because advice from her chain-of-command was sufficient.  Although AFPC never advised her to remain, they never once questioned the requests for her to stay or indicated that her career field needed her for other assignments.  She returned to the USAFA in 1992 after completing her PhD and the 1994 request to extend her tour would allow the USAFA to take advantage of the resources it spent on her education.  The 1994 AFPC opinion was never communicated to her, nor is she aware of any similar opinion when she extended her tour in 1998.  

To her knowledge there were only three non-rated officers across the Air Force with DP recommendations that were not promoted.  It is her understanding that in many of these cases in the past disciplinary issues, negative comments, or having weak records were involved.  There is no negative conduct or a negative evaluation in her 26-year career.  Her most recent evaluation and recent assignment selection confirm that her career is spotless.  When the DP process was established and publicized there was considerable discussion about the process being in place to ensure that officers in unique organizations would not be penalized by their association with those units.  Her senior rater and management level review (MLR) president recommended her for promotion by giving her a DP.  It seems that her association with this unique institution has penalized her even though that association was for the good of the Air Force.  Her complete submission 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting reaccomplishment of the contested OPR and PRF.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the comments and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend that the contested reports be reaccomplished.

4.  The Board also consideration changing only the duty title on the OPR and PRF; however the Board majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented that she has substantiated that the duty titles reflected on the OPR and PRF were in error or that the duty titles negatively impacted the selection board members.  

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02815 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The Board recommended denial of the applicant's request.  Mr. XXXXX voted to change the duty titles only because he believed that the rater's failure to change the duty titles has caused an injustice to the applicant.  He did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated,28 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPASA, dated 15 Oct 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 21 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Oct 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Nov 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 03.

									
								
AFBCMR BC-2002-02815
MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of 
I agree with the minority member in that the applicant's request to change her duty title should be granted.  However, after carefully considering all of the circumstances of this case, I am persuaded to exercise my discretionary authority to provide further relief.
The applicant states that the contested OPR and PRF contain a duty title that inaccurately portrayed the position she held and her level of responsibility in that position.  In support of her request, she provided credible evidence from her rater, senior rater, and Management Level Review Board President in which they state that her duty title did not accurately reflect her duties and that they failed to realize the necessity to formulate her duty title to correspond with her newly acquired responsibilities.  Having no basis to question the integrity of the rating chain, who unequivocally supports the applicant's request, reasonable doubt has been established concerning the accuracy of the contested OPR and the PRF.  Given the applicant's overall record of superior performance, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in her favor.  
At arriving at my decision, I note that the Courts have held that the Secretary and his Boards have an abiding moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged error or an injustice and to take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.  Accordingly, it is my decision that the contested PRF and OPR be declared void; that the revised OPR and PRF be substituted for the ones of record; and that she be provided reconsideration for promotion to colonel by an SSB.

AFBCMR BC-2002-02815

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 that:

		a.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 26 February 2000 through 25 February 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with the attached OPR reflecting in Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, first sentence, "My #1 of 80+ Lt Cols!"

		b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Colonel Selection Board, be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with the attached PRF reflecting in Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, last sentence, "Red hot for joint pol-mil/WMD billet--Def Promote, SSS!"

	It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, to include above corrections, and any subsequent board in which the replaced OPR was a matter of record.

                                                                            	

Attachments:
1.  OPR
2.  PRF