RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01557

				COUNSEL:  

				HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods  8 April 1996 to 7 April 1997 and 8 April 1997 to 11 May 1998 be corrected to reflect command push statements and Special Selection Board (SSB) considerations for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar Years 2000 to 2003 Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

According to his AFPC non-selection counselor, the only void in his records was a lack of "command push statements" in his middle-major OPRs. (Command push statements are phrases that indicate an officer is "on track" or "ready" for command).  He was stationed at RAP Mildenhall as part of HQ 3rd AF and the l00th Air Refueling Wing from June of 1992 to June of 1998. During that time, he had two particular OPRs written on him,    (8 Apr 96 - 7 Apr 97, and 8 Apr 97 - 11 May 98) which did not include command push statements. It is these two OPRs in particular that were the ones that AFPC referred to. He informed the commander that the 100th ARW did not allow these types of statements because they were considered "veiled promotion statements" which were, and are still, considered verboten. However, he informed him that the Air Force did not consider them as such, that they were allowed, and that many of his peers across the AF had them on their OPRs. HQ AFPC/DPAO personnel advised him to get his supervisors at the time, to write new statements that could be incorporated into the OPRs in question. He did this and submitted a package to the ERAB on 3 Jun 2002. This request was denied because, although the supervisors agreed to change the wording on the affected OPRs to reflect command push statements, they did not state they were given faulty guidance regarding the statements. He then resubmitted the request package on 20 Nov 2002 (Tabs 3 - 12). This time he supplied e-mails from his supervisors that showed they remembered some controversy about the command push guidance, but could not remember any of the particular details surrounding it (Tab 11). He also included a memorandum to the former 100th Mission Support Squadron (100MSS) commander, (Tab 9).  The commander explained that he saw hundreds of OPRs come through his office and he was very knowledgeable about AFPC guidance concerning command push statements.  He, in no uncertain terms, verified that command push statements were not allowed at Mildenhall during his tenure at Mildenhall and cited a now, unrecoverable message, stating so.  This request was also denied by the ERAB (Tab 3).

He believes this entire situation is an injustice.  RAF Mildenhall’s policy concerning command push statements prior to an AFPC message dated 081900ZOCT96 (Tab 10) was that they were not allowed.  The commander’s letter states that RAF Mildenhall adhered to the more restrictive policy (i.e. not allowing command push statements).  Once the above mentioned AFPC message (Tab 10) was published, the guidelines were supposedly relaxed.  The ERAB claims this message did allow command push statements and thus is the basis for their denial in their letter dated 11 December 2002 (Tab 3).  The ERAB apparently wants irrefutable proof that his supervisors were operating under erroneous guidance.  As his supervisors claim in their emails, their recollection of events is not perfect but they do recall restrictions on command push statements (Tab 11).  He cannot make them remember something that happened so long ago.  He can only provide the best possible evidence, which he has done.  He feels that the ERAB’s claim that the 1996 message allows command pushes is faulty.  Paragraph 2 of the message states, “As a general rule, prohibited statements are any comments, either direct or implied, that refer to a higher grade.  For example, comments that state the individual is performing above his/her grade, occupying a position requiring a more senior grade, comparing an individual to officers of higher rank or alluding to a higher ranking position are all prohibited.”  

Attachment 1 of AFI 36-2401 states that evidence presented to the ERAB must be credible, relevant, and believable.  As for credibility, he has his own, three Lt Colonels and two flag officers recollections that back his position.  The issue is relevant due to the fact that the guidance came out around the time the OPRs were written.  The believability issue solidifies his argument.  Is it too hard to believe that RAF Mildenhall and USAFE had more restrictive guidance than AFPC.  The opening paragraph of the 081900ZOCT96 AFPC message (Tab 10) states “We’ve had an increase in the number of questions regarding veiled promotion statements on OPRs.  Some MAJCOM staffs have already released direction on this matter.”  He tried to recover USAFE’s MAJCOM message concerning the issue, to no avail, but he believes this is the message Lt Col P___ cites.  Is it too hard to believe that there was confusion surrounding the command push issue and that Mildenhall erred on the conservative side, especially in light of how inconsistent AFPC applied their own guidance.  Once again, he feels that this situation is quite believable and the ERAB is not following its own guidance.  

In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies of letters from AFPC/DPAO/DPMPE, a copy of AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports package, copies of OPRs, emails and letters of recommendations from his commanders and deputy group commander. 

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 major.

Applicant has five nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A, CY99B, CY00A, CY01B, CY02B, Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.  The applicant has also met the CY03A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, however, the results have not been released.  

The applicant filed two similar appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 December 1997, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied.  

In the first ERAB appeal (17 Jul 02), the applicant contended his 97 and 98 OPRs should be substituted because his evaluators were given erroneous guidance when preparing the reports.  The evaluators supporting the changes never mentioned they were given faulty guidance only that they supported the changes.  The ERAB noted it would be inappropriate to change a report solely because HQ AFPC counselors observed omitted remarks could have contributed to a nonselection for promotion.  

In the second ERAB appeal (11 Dec 02) the applicant’s contentions were the same but he provided new evidence in the form of an AFPC message outlining guidance for veiled promotion statements at the time the reports were written.  However, the message provided did not prove the applicant’s contention; on the contrary it supported the fact that the rating chain was well informed that the policy did allow command recommendations.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial and notes that the applicant states in his letter to the BCMR that the 100th ARW did not allow command push statements, but did not provide any evidence to prove this allegation.  Actually the applicant provided a letter from the Director of Personnel during the time the reports were accomplished stating he was well aware of the policy concerning promotion statements and command recommendations.  The applicant went on to say that his rating chain recalled restrictions on command pushes, and while this is a true statement never was it mentioned that the rating chain recalled command pushes were completely prohibited.  The applicant also argued that there is no normal progression for Major to Lt Col in his career field to receive command push within AFPC guidelines; however the member received a command push on his 95 and 96 OPRs from the same location.  As such it isn’t clear how the member contends the base had an inappropriate policy.  Finally, the applicant states it was interesting to note that AFPC was still putting out guidance on “command push” statements.  While this statement is actually true, it is similar to every other program in the Air Force.  Guidance will continue to go out to the field to ensure members are familiar with what current policy as was the case with the Oct 96 message.  

One point the member neglected to mention was the fact that the additional rater (100 Air Wing/Commander) on the 7 April 1997 OPR did include an assignment recommendation, “MAJCOM staff position next.”  There are no errors or injustices cited in the 7 April 1997 and 11 May 1998 OPRs.  The applicant requests that the AFBCMR substitute his OPRs based on the fact that they are lacking command recommendations. He has not included command recommendations.  The fact remains that the applicant was counseled after nonselection for promotion that the two reports in question may have been viewed as weak because they did not include a command push; however, the rating chain never came on line and stated they were working under faulty guidance.  This is clearly a retrospective view years after the initial assessment was rendered and a clear attempt to get the applicant another opportunity for promotion.

AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommend denied and stated that based on the evidence provided, and the recommendation in the AFPC/DPPPE advisory, they recommend denial.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and stated that in typical fashion the DPPPE advisory opinion fails totally to recognize this line of inescapable logic and declared without analysis, “As such it isn’t clear how the member contends that the base had an inappropriate policy.”  It further declared, “He (applicant) has not provided any evidence to support his allegation that faulty guidance led to his report not including command recommendations.”  

We agree that “it would be inappropriate to change a report solely because HQ AFPC counselors” made observations about omitted remarks.  Since applicant has not done that, the observation is irrelevant.  

Lastly, the advisory opinions, as they always do, suggest that the raters’ and additional raters’ requests for changing the OPRs are “retrospective thinking” and not reflective of those individual’s views at the time.  This hackneyed rationale, uttered regularly without analysis, fails miserably here.  There are no command push statements in either OPR.  The raters and senior raters did not say that they knowingly eliminated such statement.  To the contrary, they willingly provided them when the problem was identified.  There were few things that commanders remember more vividly about those who served for them, than those who should not be allowed to command.  Applicant did not rest within that group of rated officers.  For the foregoing reasons relief should be provided.

Counsel complete response 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 an error or injustice.  In support of his contention, the applicant provided statements from his rating chain, which has led us to believe that the contested OPRs did not accurately portray their assessment of applicant’s promotion potential.  Given the unequivocal support from these senior Air Force officers involved, and having no plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter, we believe that the contested OPRs should be corrected and that he should be considered by SSB for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the selection boards in question.  Therefore, in view of the above findings, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.  

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1996 through 7 April 1997, be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “Exemplary officer and exceptional leader/manager. Ready for command. Send to Senior Service School!” and in Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “A top performer and trusted advisor, challenge with command and AWC.  MAJCOM staff next!”

	b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1997 through 11 May 1998, be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “Proven performer with superb potential. Ready for command.  Send to Senior Service School immediately” and in Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “Top performer with skills to handle any job--definitely select for command and Senior Service School.” 

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Years CY00A, CY01B, CY02B and CY03A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards and for any subsequent boards in which the above correction was not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-01557 in Executive Session on 8 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 28 May 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Aug 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Counsel Response, dated 3 Nov 03

                                  Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01557

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 APPLCIANT, be corrected to show that:

	     a.	The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1996 through 7 April 1997, be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “Exemplary officer and exceptional leader/manager. Ready for command. Send to Senior Service School!” and in Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “A top performer and trusted advisor, challenge with command and AWC.  MAJCOM staff next!”

	     b.	The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1997 through 11 May 1998, be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “Proven performer with superb potential. Ready for command.  Send to Senior Service School immediately” and in Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line with, “Top performer with skills to handle any job--definitely select for command and Senior Service School.”

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  Special Selection Board for the Calendar Years 2000A through 2003A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.

                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency