RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00962
		INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 9 January 1999 and 9 January 2000, be replaced with the reaccomplished OPRs he has provided.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY99B (30 November 1999) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), with inclusion of the reaccomplished OPRs and the missing Air Medals (Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Oak Leaf Clusters).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater inadvertently left out a command recommendation on his 9 January 1999 OPR and a Professional Military Education (PME) recommendation on his 9 January 2000 OPR; and, his 9 January 2000 OPR has a typographical error in Section III, Block II, last sentence, the word “Files” should read “Flies.”

Three Air Medals (Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Oak Leaf Clusters) were not in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) when he met the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  The Air Medals were awarded for his performance in April and May of 1999, prior to the convening of the board; therefore, they should have been in his OSR for the CY99B selection board.

In support of his request, applicant submits a DD Form 149 continuation sheet, reaccomplished OPRs, a statement from his rater, a copy of his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal and decision and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 14 February 1984.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 1996.  The following is a resume of his Officer Performance Report (OPR) ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		     9 Jan 97	Meets Standards (MS)
		     9 Jan 98			MS
		*#   9 Jan 99			MS
		*##  9 Jan 00			MS
		     9 Jan 01			MS
		### 31 May 01			MS
		####31 May 02			MS
		     8 Apr 03			MS

*  Contested OPR

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (P0599B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 30 November 1999.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (P0500A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 28 November 2000.

### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (P0501B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 5 November 2001.

#### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY02B (P0502B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, which convened on 12 November 2002.

The applicant was awarded the Air Medal, Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster, by Special Order GA-77, dated 27 August 1999, for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight as an F-16 Fighter Pilot on 19 May 1999.

He was awarded the Air Medal, Sixth Oak Leaf Cluster, by Special Order GA-32, dated 26 March 2000, for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight as an F-16 Fighter Pilot on 25 May 1999.

He was awarded the Air Medal, Seventh Oak Leaf Cluster, by Special Order GA-22, dated 28 March 2001, for meritorious achievement while participating in sustained aerial flight as an F-16 Fighter Pilot, from 7 April 1999 to 13 May 1999.

A similar appeal concerning the contested OPRs was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 6 December 2000.

Information maintained in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals that the applicant currently has an established date of separation of 29 February 2004.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE, recommends the application concerning replacement of the contested OPRs and SSB consideration be denied.  DPPPE recommends that the Board approve the request to correct the typographical error on the OPR closing 9 January 2000.  DPPPE concurs with the ERAB’s ruling that evaluation reports can be changed to be harder hitting; however, the time to make these changes is before the report becomes a matter of record.  DPPPE states that there are no errors or injustices cited in the 9 January 1999 and 9 January 2000 OPRs.  DPPPE noted the rater’s letter of support and indicated that it is not clear why the PME and command recommendations were not included when the reports were initially rendered.  Retrospective views should not be used as a basis to change valid performance assessments and provide another opportunity at promotion.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO states that the applicant’s request to include the Air Medal, Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 5OLC), is untimely.  DPPPO disagrees with the applicant’s contention that his Air Medal, Sixth Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 6OLC), and Air Medal, Seventh Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 7OLC), were missing from his Officer Selection Record (OSR) when it met the CY99B selection board.  Although the closeout date of the applicant’s AM 6OLC was 25 May 1999 and the AM 7OLC was 13 May 1999, the special orders were published on 26 March 2000 and 28 March 2001, respectively.  Thus, his record did not contain these citations, nor were they reflected on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY99B selection board.  The governing Air Force instruction stipulates that decoration recommendations are entered into official channels within two years and awarded within three years of the act, achievement or service performed.  In addition, the citations and special orders must be forwarded within 30 days of the date the special orders are published.  As such, the special orders and citations for the cited AMs were processed within the guidelines of the governing directive and neither was due for file until 26 April 2000 and 28 April 2001, respectively.

DPPPO agrees that the applicant’s AM 5OLC was not listed on his CY99B OSB, nor was the citation filed in his OSR for this board.  However, each officer eligible for promotion receives an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to the central board convening date, with written instructions to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  DPPPO states that the applicant did not provide any evidence that he exercised “reasonable diligence” in attempting to ensure his record was correct prior to convening of the CY99B selection board.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

On 10 September 2003, the AFBCMR approved the applicant’s 2 September 2003 request to have his case temporarily withdrawn (Exhibit F).  On 19 October 2003, the applicant’s appeal was reopened in accordance with his letter of 4 October 2003 (Exhibit G).

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicates that, since an officer is not entitled to see his OPR until it is a matter of record, he was not allowed the opportunity to make the changes before the report became a matter of record.  His only recourse was to identify the error to his rater and request that he write a letter stating that he made an error in preparing his OPRs.  In further evidence of the senior rater’s intent to include command and PME recommendations, he has provided a copy of the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), written just prior to the November 1999 selection board and falls directly between the dates of the OPRs in question.  In submitting his application to the ERAB, he did take steps to correct the error.  The time delay in submitting the application to the AFBCMR was due to guidance he received from the local Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to delay the OPR changes until he resolved the issue of the Air Medals.  With regard to the Air Medal, Fifth Oak Leaf Cluster (AM 5OLC), being untimely, it was not entered into his official records until October 2001.  Therefore, he could not appeal a medal that he did not know was approved prior to the CY99B (30 November 1999) selection board.  The 30-day time limit for forwarding special orders was far exceeded since it was not entered into his official records until October 2001, after the Sixth and Seventh OLCs were entered into his official records in May 2000 and May 2001, respectively.  The medals under review were not entered into his records within the 30-day time frame.  The special order awarding the AM 6OLC was published on 26 March 2000, yet it was not entered into his official records until 9 May 2000; and, the special order awarding the AM 7OLC was published on 28 March 2001 and entered into his official records on 24 May 2001.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The portion of the application pertaining to the applicant’s OPR, closing 9 January 2000, and his request for an SSB was timely filed.  The portion of the application pertaining to the OPR, closing 9 January 1999, and SSB with inclusion of the three Air Medals was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice concerning the contested OPRs, closing 9 January 1999 and 9 January 2000, and consideration by SSB.  After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board majority is persuaded that the contested Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) do not accurately reflect the rater’s overall assessment.  In this respect, the Board majority notes the statement provided from the senior rater indicating his oversight and that it was his intent and desire to include a recommendation on the cited OPRs for both SSS in residence and for a command.  Based on the above statement and in the absence of a basis to question his integrity, the Board majority recommends the contested OPRs be replaced with the reaccomplished OPRs submitted with the application.  It was also noted that the typographical error in Section III of the contested OPR, closing 9 January 2000, has been corrected in the reaccomplished OPR; therefore, no Board action on this issue is necessary.  In view of the foregoing, and in order to offset any possibility of an injustice, the Board majority further recommends that the applicant be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board with the reaccomplished OPRs in his records.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting SSB consideration, with inclusion of the Air Medals Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Oak Leaf Clusters (AM 5OLC, 6 OLC and 7OLC).  The Board took note of the applicant’s contentions concerning the omission of his aforementioned Air Medals when he was considered for promotion by the CY99B selection board.  However, since the special order awarding the AM 5OLC was dated 27 August 1999, we are unpersuaded by the evidence provided that the applicant took reasonable and timely steps to ensure that his records concerning the AM 5OLC were correct prior to the convening of the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  With regards to the AM 6OLC and 7OLC, we note that the orders awarding the medals were published subsequent to the convening of the CY99B selection board.  In addition, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the cited AMs were not processed within the guidelines of the governing Air Force instruction.  In view of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 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, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend approval of the applicant’s request for SSB, with inclusion of the cited Air Medals.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), AF Forms 707A, rendered for the periods 10 January 1998 through 9 January 1999 and 10 January 1999 through 9 January 2000, be declared void and removed from his records, and the reaccomplished OPRs be accepted for file in their place.

It is further recommended that his record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1999B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and any subsequent boards for which the now reaccomplished OPRs were not a matter of record.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 30 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
              Member

Mr. Peterson and Ms. Loeb voted to correct the contested OPRs and grant promotion consideration by an SSB; however, they voted to deny the applicant’s request for SSB, with only the inclusion of the cited AMs.  XXXXX voted to deny the applicant’s stated request but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00962.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 29 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 29 Jul 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 2 Sep 03.
   Exhibit G.  Letter from Applicant, dated 4 Oct 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00962

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 the Field Grade Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), AF Forms 707A, rendered for the periods 10 January 1998 through 9 January 1999 and 10 January 1999 through 9 January 2000, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records, and the reaccomplished OPRs be accepted for file in their place.

	It is further directed that his record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1999B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and any subsequent boards for which the now reaccomplished OPRs were not a matter of record.

		
                                     	Director
                                     	Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment
Reaccomplished OPRs, closing 9 Jan 99 and 9 Jan 00