RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01200

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 11 April 1998 through 10 April 1999 be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B and CY02B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR for the period ending 10 April 1999 included false statements, did not reflect accomplishments during the entire performance period based on command, wing and squadron remarks.  No one has been willing to give him a Definitely Promote on the Promotion Recommendation worksheet.

In support of the his appeal, he submits an index of attachments, an executive summary statement, OPRs, a personal data sheet, nomination for awards, recommendation for decorations and awards, letters of appreciation, a letter from HQ ACC/IGQ and a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) action.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.

The applicant had two nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B and CY02B lieutenant central colonel selection boards.

The applicant submitted an appeal regarding the 10 April 1999 OPR to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). His request was reviewed by the ERAB and determined that the applicant did not provide any supporting documentation from the evaluators stating the report should be corrected to include missing accomplishments or that the report should be voided.

The applicant’s OPR profile since 1996:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

			13 May 96		Meets Standards (MS)
			13 May 97				MS
	*		10 Apr 98				MS
	*		10 Apr 99				MS
			10 Apr 00				MS
			10 Apr 01				MS
			10 Apr 02				MS
			25 Jan 03				MS

* Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial and states that the applicant’s contention that his report includes false information is only supported by his opinion.  In a memo provided by the applicant, the additional rater states, “Although the applicant has provided a great deal of data to counter the evaluation provided, he has not found it sufficient to change his stance.”  Further, the additional rater states the applicant failed to provide enough evidence to support the claims of Personality Conflict, Undue Emphasis on Isolated Incidents, and Evaluation Inconsistent with Decorations.  The applicant merely provided his opinion that each of these claims about his report was substantiated.  

The applicant provided a large list of accolades and accomplishments that he believes should have been included on the report; however, the rating chain decides what information to include on the report, not the ratee.  The evaluators clearly believe the information they included on the report best reflected the applicant’s performance during the reporting period.  While the applicant has provided copies of awards he contends support his allegations, many are “team” awards and the individual awards do not cover the entire rating period.  Further, it actually appears from reading the first bullet in Sections IV and VI that the evaluators give credit for the flight’s accomplishments to others in the flight—not the applicant.  The applicant further states that the report caused him to be nonselected for promotion; however, again, there is no evidence to prove this other than his own opinion.  

The applicant has provided a statement from a colonel assigned to HQ ACC/IGQ stating, “His 1999 lackluster officer performance report, with downgraded remarks, greatly influenced…” their decision to give the applicant a “promote” recommendation.  The fact that it may have influence their decision, however, does not make the contested report an inaccurate assessment.  Like all other officers meeting promotion boards, the “whole record” is considered when deciding what promotion recommendation to award the officers.  When officers do not receive a “definitely promote” recommendation, it does not mean one of their reports is inaccurate (only that other officers “whole record” was stronger).  We also note that the endorser of the letter is not the Senior Rater who endorsed the “promote” PRF.  Further, there is nothing to indicate that even without the contested report the applicant’s “whole record” would have been strong enough to support a “definitely promote.”

Air Force policy is an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The applicant was originally denied by the ERAB based on the simple fact that he provided no evidence to prove his contentions.  Now the applicant has included several new reasons the report is inaccurate; however, he has provided nothing but his opinion to support the contentions.  It’s easy for anyone to allege that something is wrong with a performance report, but the applicants must support their allegations with some kind of evidence.  In this case, the applicant has failed to do so.  The additional rater has even reviewed the applicant’s documentation and still stands firm on the report as originally rendered. 

AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the AFPC/DPPPE advisory and, since that advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.  

AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 August 2003, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force 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, we find no compelling basis 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 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-2003-01200 in Executive Session on 17 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Jul 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Aug 03
	Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.