RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00031
		INDEX CODE:  111.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be corrected to reflect his correct duty history. 

2.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 10 May 1998 through 26 February 1999 be replaced with a reaccomplished OPR rendered for the same period and that he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar Year CY01B Selection Board.

By amendment, the applicant indicates that his request for an SSB is moot, due to the fact that the OSB was corrected in time for the CY02 lieutenant colonel board and he was promoted.  His request before the Board is that his duty performance be properly documented by a reaccomplished OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His original 26 February 1999 OPR had significant accomplishments inadvertently left out due to a change in reporting official (CRO) that was backdated.  The failure to include these accomplishments resulted in a mediocre OPR that did not accurately reflect his performance for that rating period and possibly contributed to his non-selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

The rewritten OPR was submitted to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in January 2002 but was rejected based upon the incorrect assumption that he was aware of the CRO in May 1998.  The statement from his former rater clarifies that this CRO actually occurred in November 1998 and was backdated to May 1998.   He also states in his haste to retire he failed to notify him of the backdated CRO.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a reaccomplished Officer Performance Report for the period 10 May 1998 through 26 February 1999, letter from the rater, dated 18 December 2001, letter from his former supervisor, dated 12 April 2002, the Officer Selection Brief prepared for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and other documentation.

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 lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 November 2001) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  However, he was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B (12 November 2002) central lieutenant colonel selection board and promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel effective 1 April 2003.

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY01B Selection Board did not reflect the correct duty history (27 August 1991 and 30 June 1994 entries) in the Assignment History section.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  The OSB was correct for the CY02 board, but was incorrect for the CY01 board.  Applicant has not received SSB for the CY01 board based on this correction at this time.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the ERAB.  They concluded that the applicant did not provide clear evidence the contested OPR was erroneous or unjust.  They further indicated, “retrospective views of facts and circumstances 3 years after the report is written, will not overcome the ERAB’s presumption that the initial assessment is valid.”

AFPC/DPAO has advised that the Assignment History of the OSB has been updated to reflect the DAFSC of 1531 effective 27 August 1991 and the DAFSC of 12S3Y effective 30 June 1994 with a duty title of AC-130 Mission Manager.

OPR profile since 1996 follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

		       9 May 96	Meets Standards (MS)
		       9 May 97				(MS)
		       9 May 98				(MS)
		    * 26 Feb 99				(MS)
		      30 Mar 00				(MS)
		      30 Mar 01                   		(MS)
		      30 Mar 02              				(MS)

* Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant contends that due to a backdated change in reporting official, his rater was unable to provide a fair and accurate assessment of his performance.  The applicant has provided supporting memorandums from his rating chain emphasizing that due to a backdated Change in Reporting Official (CRO), his 26 February 1999 OPR does not adequately reflect his contributions to his unit during the time frame in question.  They have examined the proposed substitute OPR in its entirety.  They have concluded that there is not any additional information on the proposed report that was not known when the original OPR was completed.  In fact, most of the bullets are the same except that they have been “strengthened” and reworded to be “harder hitting.”  As stated by the ERAB, “the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record.”  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 26 February 1999 OPR.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO deferred to AFPC/DPPPO for Special Selection Board consideration.  They indicated that the applicant’s CY01B Lieutenant Colonel’s Central Selection Board Officer Selection Brief (OSB) contained incorrect assignment history   information.  The applicant’s current Military Personnel Flight (MPF) has obtained, reviewed, and verified supporting documentation and has updated the applicant’s duty history.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They indicated that in addition to the Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) the applicant received for the CY01B Board, for his in-the-promotion zone consideration, they point out that he also received OPBs for the CY00 (28 November 2000) and the CY99B (30 November 1999) below-the-promotion zone central lieutenant colonel selection boards.  The contended incorrect duty history entries were also reflected on both of the OSBs for his below-the-promotion zone considerations, as well.  They question why the applicant did not attempt to challenge the contested errors on his OPBs for the CY00A and CY99B boards.

While it may be argued that the incorrect OSB was a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that this data negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  They are not convinced the administrative errors in the duty history from 8 and 11 years ago contributed to the applicant’s promotion nonselection.

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicated that in reference to the OPR, AFPC asserts that most of the bullets are the same, when in fact bullets 2 and 3 of the rater’s section are both new.  His original OPR was flawed because there was no discussion between raters regarding his performance before the original OPR was written.  Due to a permanent change of station (PCS) he was not given the opportunity to review the flawed OPR before the report became a matter of record.  The SSB issue is moot.  The OSB was corrected to reflect the correct duty history in time for his CY02 lieutenant colonel board and he was promoted.

Applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice warranting the OPR closing 26 February 1999 be replaced with a reaccomplished OPR covering the same period.  The applicant contends that his original 26 February 1999 OPR had significant accomplishments inadvertently left out due to a change in reporting official (CRO) that was backdated.  The failure to include these accomplishments resulted in a mediocre OPR that did not accurately reflect his performance for that rating period and possibly contributed to his non-selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the rating chain members provided an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance at the time the report was rendered.  We have reviewed the comments by the evaluators of the contested report and do not find their statements provide an adequate basis to recommend approval of the requested relief.  Further, it is our opinion that the statements provided in support of the appeal constitute retrospective assessments of the applicant’s performance and potential, written as well-meaning after-the-fact attempts to enhance the applicant’s promotability.  Such motivations are not sufficient to support findings that the contested OPR itself was erroneous or unjust.  With regard to the issue of the incorrect duty history, we do not believe these errors were so egregious as to not provide him a fair and equitable promotion consideration.  In addition, the applicant had at least 90 days prior to the convening of the CY01B board to examine his OPB for completeness and accuracy.  The applicant indicates that he did identify the errors and reported them to his MPF and relied on them to make the changes.  However, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the applicant exercised due diligence in making sure the corrections were processed prior to the board and thereby ensure that his records were correct prior to the convening of the promotion board.  The applicant argues that the corrected OSB was a factor in his selection for promotion by the CY02 board because the alleged flawed OPR was still in his record - the only difference was the corrected OSB.  However, we have seen no evidence that the error on his OSB caused his record to be so erroneous or misleading that the duly constituted selection, vested with the discretionary authority to select officers for promotion, was unable to make a reasonable decision concerning the applicant’s promotability when compared to his peers.  We note that, in addition to the corrected OSB, when he was considered by the CY02 board, he had an additional OPR in his record and a Definitely Promote promotion recommendation form.  Presumably, any or all of these factors could have resulted in his selection for promotion by the CY02 board.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendations of the appropriate offices of primary responsibility.  In view of th  e above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00031 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 December 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 February 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPAO, dated 16 April 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 April 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 2003.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 2003.