RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03876

				COUNSEL:  NONE

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

It appears that the applicant is requesting the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods  11 March 1997 to 10 March 1998 and 11 March 1998 to 10 March 1999, and the P0600A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection for promotion resulted because two of his OPRs from AFROTC did not reflect his true performance and potential, and the omission, to some degree, of stratification and command push in the PRF that met the CY01B Colonel Selection Board.

His tenure in AFROTC was truly outstanding…his rater unjustly omitted command/assignment push because of false allegations and personal biases.  He submits his before and after OPRs as proof of his performance, accomplishments, and potential to highlight the injustice.  He has also enclosed results of an investigation (he would like to explain in person/detail at a board appearance) that caused his rater to bias his OPRs.  Relative to his PRF, wing senior leadership did not intend to send a message to the board that his current performance and past service were anything less than exemplary.  Due the fog and fiction caused by 9/11, it’s aftermath, and the date of the selection board, wing leadership just didn’t take the extraordinary steps and time to ensure his PRF included command push and stratification.  With “command push” in his top OPR, they truly believed the PRF sent the right message…to promote!

He doesn’t believe he should be penalized for his ROTC boss’s tainted personal opinions when his before and after OPRs attest to his accomplishments and potential or be denied promotion because of the lack of attention to detail in his PRF.  Throughout a long career, he has accomplished with success, all the things the Air Force has asked him to do…he stayed in the field and led (they all couldn’t attend PME in-residence), mentored, and held command five times; gained the breath and depth of experience needed/required at the 06 level in today’s AF.

He asks the Board to consider this request favorably and correct the gross injustice caused by personal biases and the fog and fiction of war.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of OPRs and an IG report. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 1 September 1997.

Applicant was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board.

The applicant’s OPR profile since 1996:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			06 Jun 96		Meets Standards (MS)
			10 Mar 97				MS
	*		10 Mar 98				MS
	*		10 Mar 99				MS
			10 Mar 00				MS
			18 Aug 00				MS
			18 Aug 01				MS
			18 Apr 02				MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommend denied.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  There are no errors or injustices cited in the OPRs.  The applicant requests that the AFBCMR void his OPRs based on the fact that the OPRs are lacking PME and assignment recommendations.  He has not provided any evidence to support his allegation that the omissions of PME and assignment recommendations were the result of bias.  Further, the applicant has not provided a new PRF with senior rater and management level review president’s concurrence as required.  

The applicant contends that the 10 March 1998 and 10 March 1999 OPRs didn’t reflect his true performance and potential and that the lack of PME and assignment recommendations had a significant impact on his non-selection for promotion.  The applicant has failed to provide any comments from anyone within his rating chain.  The applicant alleges his rater was biased towards him; however, he has failed to provide any documentation in support of his allegation.  While he has submitted a memorandum from the IG indicating allegations against him were not substantiated, that does not prove the rating chain was biased against him.  The letter does not detail any specifics to the investigation and no other evidence has been submitted.  There is evidence that his rating chain could have felt that the applicant was not ready for continued PME or a command assignment (evidenced by his previous evaluation containing PME and assignment recommendations).  It is reasonable to believe that the applicant failed to provide comments from the rating chain as those comments could bring to light their specific reasons for not recommending continued PME and assignment recommendations.

The applicant contends that he was non-selected for promotion because of the omissions of stratification and command push in his P0601B PRF.  He has not provided any statements from his Senior Rater or MLR President to support his allegation that the omission was unintentional.  Rewrites to Section IV simply to include different, but previously known or documented accomplishments are not valid reasons to appeal a PRF.  

AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They reviewed the AFPC/DPPPE advisory and have nothing further to add.  Since that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 February 2003, for review and comment.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an 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 evidence from his rating chain or other agencies to support his contention of error or injustice.   In the  absence of the necessary evidence, the OPRs 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.

4.	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 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 BC-2003-01673 in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Jan 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Feb 03
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Feb 03.