RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00472
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
	
		COUNSEL:  XXXXX

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing on 17 Feb 00, 17 Feb 01, and 17 Feb 02, be removed from his records and replaced with reaccomplished OPRs closing 20 Oct 99, 20 Oct 00, and 20 Oct 01.

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB).

4.  His assignment history be changed to reflect the correct duty title.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His time and performance as the --th Air Wing, Chief, Protocol Operations, was not adequately documented.  His supervisor had 116 days of supervision as reflected in the personnel data system even though he worked for her for 7 months.  She was incorrectly told that his records could not be backdated to reflect the correct dates and therefore she only prepared a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) upon his departure.  He was later advised that backdating was done frequently in cases such as his and should have been done in his case.  The omission of a permanent change-of-station (PCS) OPR had the effect of creating a questionable portrait of his performance.  Further, his PCS decoration was not fully processed for over a year.  These two issues, an LOE and no PCS decoration left his new commander with the impression that his previous performance was less than stellar.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, documentation associated with his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal, letters of support, copies of the contested reports, copies of the corrected reports, his duty history.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 97.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01), and the CY02B (12 Nov 02), lieutenant colonel selection boards.  He currently has a projected date of separation of 31 Oct 05.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE states that the applicant's rater states herself that she was not officially listed as the rater until mid-June 1999, when she assumed the position as Director of Protocol.  She states, "Before I assumed the position, it was the policy then that everyone reports directly under the Director of Protocol for OPR/EPR purposes".  This clarification by the rater specifically addresses why his change of rating official did not occur until mid-June 1999, eventually leading to insufficient supervision for the rater to complete an OPR.  LOEs cover periods of ratee performance too short to require an OPR, or periods of time when the rater is under someone other than the designated rater.  LOE's are optional.  The next evaluator uses them to prepare the ratee's next OPR as indicated in AFI 63-2402, which is exactly the procedure the rater followed.  

The applicant requests substitution of the 17 Feb 01 and 17 Feb 02 OPRs based on the anticipation that the AFBCMR will void the 17 Feb 00 OPR.  If the Board were to substitute the 17 Feb 00 OPR, it would be appropriate to replace the 17 Feb 01 and 17 Feb 02 OPRs to realign the reporting periods.  Regarding his request to replace his PRF, DPPPE states that there has been no change to the applicant's record of performance.  To change Section IV, the senior rater must demonstrate there was a material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted.  

A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to his nonselection for promotion.  A simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.  The applicant must prove that the report is erroneous or unjust based on its content.  It appears that the applicant did not view this as an error until after his nonselection for promotion.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO recommends that the Board time-bar the applicant's request to correct his duty history entry from four years ago.  Clearly, the errors were discoverable when they occurred.  His duty history entry has since been updated in the personnel data system.  However, each eligible officer for promotion consideration received an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to the board convening.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  Written instructions provided to each eligible officer specifically instruct the officer to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If any errors are found, corrective action must be taken prior to the board, not after it.  Since the applicant did not exercise due diligence to ensure his record was correct prior to the board, SSB is not warranted.  Additionally, there is no clear evidence that this data negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reiterated the applicant's contentions, provided a summary of the applicant's career and states in order for a performance report to serve its intended purpose it must correctly reflect a member's performance history.  Decisions based on incorrect performance reports do not serve the underlying policy of fairness and accuracy.  DPPPE's position in this matter is untenable.  The applicant does not challenge the accuracy of the assessments of his performance contained in the 17 Feb 01 and 17 Feb 02 OPRS, rather the 17 Feb 00 OPR contains serious errors and injustices.  At the time of his departure, the applicant did not receive an OPR covering seven months he served under Lt Col C---.  Although Lt Col T--- was initially assigned as his rater, Lt Col T--- knew that he was scheduled to depart within 8 weeks.  Lt Col states that his secretary erred by not transferring him to Lt Col C---- as did occur with all other individuals working for Lt Col T---.  As a result, his rater was obligated to complete an OPR based on only 120 days of supervision for a period that covered 15 months.  In effect creating a 15-month gap in the applicant's performance record.  The content of an OPR based on an administrative error, that does not accurately reflect the time period during which the applicant performed his duties must be considered erroneous and unjust.  

His PRF was erroneous and unjust because it contains information based on the erroneous 17 Feb 00 OPR and the failure to provide the applicant with a decoration in a timely manner.  It took more than one year for the applicant to receive a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) earned as a result of his contributions.  The PRF contained a material error in that it did not reflect the existence of the MSM that was awarded.  By the time the MSM was awarded his senior rater had already prepared his PRF for the CY00A promotion board.  The senior rater states that the content of the original PRF would have been materially different if he had known of the MSM.  DPPPE's assertion that "there has been no change to the applicant's record of performance" is simply mistaken.  The presence or absence of the MSM and the OPR were primary factors in his "racking and stacking" being lower than he otherwise would have had.  It is evident that the absence of the MSM and the OPR strongly influenced his senior rater's perception of the applicant's past performance.  The senior rater was led to conclude that his "former commander had no interest in his career and had, in fact, sent a message that this officer was not a top performer."  

DPPPO's position that he did not exercise reasonable diligence is without merit.  Upon arrival at his new duty station, the applicant learned of the administrative error and immediately contacted the Military Personnel Flight for advice.  He was advised that he should pursue correction of the error through his former rater asking that she backdate his OPR.  He diligently pursued such informal remedies to no avail.  He did not learn of his option to apply for correction through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) and began preparing his application in April 2000.  This remedy was pursued prior to the convening of the CY00A selection board.  He diligently pursued remedies in obtaining his MSM after he departed Andrews AFB.  He was led to believe that the decoration was forwarded to the appropriate individuals when in fact it was buried on the secretary's desk.  Once the secretary admitted that she had not forwarded the decoration, it was processed.  

In support of his request, counsel provided a brief, documents from the applicant's record of performance, and a statement of support.  His 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting partial relief.  In this regard, it appears that upon his assignment to the Andrews AFB Protocol Office on 2 Apr 99, he was assigned under the supervision of Lt Col T---, who at the time was projected to depart on a permanent-change-of-station (PCS) move.  In April 1999, change of reporting official (CRO) actions were accomplished for the officers assigned under Lt Col T--- to ensure proper reporting coverage.  However, a CRO was not accomplished for the applicant.  Statements provided in support of his appeal have led us to believe that although he was assigned under the supervision of Lt Col T---, the applicant actually worked directly for Lt Col C--- even though she was not assigned as his rater until June 1999.  As a result, upon the applicant's reassignment in October 1999, there was insufficient supervision for his rater to prepare an OPR and the applicant received an LOE.  A subsequent OPR was prepared closing 17 Feb 00, which included accomplishments extracted from the LOE.  The applicant believes that his 17 Feb 00 OPR should be replaced with an OPR closing 20 Oct 99.  We agree.  Although it appears that the established procedures were properly followed by providing the applicant an LOE, he has provided credible evidence which has led us to believe that had he been properly CRO'd under the supervision of Lt Col C--- in April 1999, he would have had the requisite 120 days supervision to prepare an OPR upon his departure in October 1999.  In addition, we believe that because the applicant was not placed under the supervision of Lt Col C--- along with the other officers, he was inadvertently treated differently and dealt an injustice.  We believe that in order to correct this injustice, the OPR provided by the applicant closing 20 Oct 99 should be inserted in his record, the reports closing 17 Feb 00, 17 Feb 01, and 17 Feb 02 should be declared void, the reports closing 20 Oct 00, and 20 Oct 01, should be inserted in their place, and any subsequently prepared reports be adjusted accordingly.  Therefore, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we do not believe the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice with regard to his request to replace his PRF with a corrected PRF.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the contested PRF as written, is an inaccurate depiction of his potential to serve in the next higher grade.  We are not persuaded that there were any errors or improprieties in his promotion recommendation process.  With respect to his contention that his PRF would have been materially different had his MSM been completed in a more timely matter.  His contentions are duly noted.  However, we note that in accordance with established policy, a decoration recommendation must be submitted within 2 years and awarded within 3 years of the service performed.  The decoration in question was awarded well within the established timelines; and therefore, we do not find any errors of injustices with respect to this matter.  Our decision does not preclude the applicant from requesting a review of his record from the appropriate senior rater and MLR President along with his corrected record.  If they agree that his PRF should be corrected, then the option to request reaccomplishment of his PRF through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) process is available to him.  Applicant's duty history has been corrected in the Military Personnel Data System.

_________________________________________________________________

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 (OPR), rendered for the period 12 December 1998 through 17 February 2000, be declared void and replaced with the attached report reflecting inclusive dates of 22 December 1998 through 20 October 1999.

b.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2000 through 17 February 2001, be declared void and replaced with the attached report reflecting inclusive dates of 21 October 1999 through 20 October 2000.

c.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2001 through 17 February 2002, be declared void and replaced with the attached report reflecting inclusive dates of 21 October 2000 through 20 October 2001.

d.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2002 through 31 October 2002 be amended to reflect a beginning date of 21 October 2001.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, to include the above corrections, and any subsequent board, in which the replaced OPRs were a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00472 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Jul 03, w/atchs.

					
								Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00472

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 AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 12 December 1998 through 17 February 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with the attached report reflecting inclusive dates of 22 December 1998 through 20 October 1999.

		b.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2000 through 17 February 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with the attached report reflecting inclusive dates of 21 October 1999 through 20 October 2000.

		c.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2001 through 17 February 2002, be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced with the attached report reflecting inclusive dates of 21 October 2000 through 20 October 2001.

		d.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2002 through 31 October 2002 be amended to reflect a beginning date of 21 October 2001.

		It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, to include the above corrections, and any subsequent board, in which the replaced OPRs were a matter of record.

							
							Director
							Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachments:
1.  OPR closing 20 Oct 99
2.  OPR closing 20 Oct 00
3.  OPR closing 20 Oct 01