RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01917
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 1 Jun 99 and 1 Jun 00 be declared void and replaced with corrected reports.

2.  Her Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) prepared for the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) and (CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, be declared void and replaced with corrected reports.

3.  Her corrected records be supplementally considered by supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) boards for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards.

4.  She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; or in the alternative, she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant provided two applications to the AFBCMR.  Applicant states that the 1999 and 2000 OPRs and PRFs fail to contain key statements considered by promotion boards to be essential ingredients of a promotable record.  Her rater and senior rater state that omission of these statements were mistakes based on their misunderstanding of the importance of such statements.  The result was that the selection boards interpreted the records, intended to be positive, as sending a subtle signal that she was unworthy of advancement.  Although both raters were aware that stratification and recommendations for assignment and senior service school were authorized, they were not aware that their absence would be regarded as a critical discriminator.  At the time they were written, Air Force guidance did not encourage inclusion of service school and assignment recommendations.  It is now known to be extremely important to include such recommendations as stratification.

Her CY00A PRF was erroneously competed at the AFSPC MLR.  Because the AF Student MLR has already adjourned, the MLR President was asked to independently determine her promotion record.  That attempt was compromised when the MLR President was inappropriately informed her record had been evaluated by another MLR in error and that she received a "Promote" recommendation.  In addition, she was denied an opportunity to review her Officer Preselection Brief prior to the board convening.  Her record contained errors, which made it impossible for the board to provide an accurate evaluation of her record and potential.  

Applicant's complete submission, which includes a personal statement and a statement from her senior rater and a memorandum from the MLR President, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov 01), and CY02B (12 Nov 02) lieutenant colonel selection boards.  

The ERAB previously approved correction of the Group Size on her CY99B PRF.  On 19 May 03, she was considered and not selected by SSB for promotion to lieutenant colonel for the CY99B selection board.  

The applicants CY00A narrative-only PRF was erroneously competed at the AFSPC MLR.  On 19 Aug 03, she received supplemental MLR consideration at the AF Student MLR and she received a "Promote" recommendation.  Her education history and duty title were corrected on the CY00A Officer Selection Brief (OSB).  She requested correction of her Duty Air Force Specialty Code to reflect 51J3, rather than 92S0, but that portion of her request was denied.  She was considered by SSB for the CY00A selection board and was not selected for promotion.

On 27 Nov 02, the ERAB denied her requests for substitution of the 1 Jun 99 and 1 Jul 00 OPRs, and the CY99A and CY99B PRFs stating "A simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.  You must prove the report is erroneous of unjust based on its content."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant's request to substitute her OPRs closing 1 Jun 99 and 1 Jul 00, and the CY99B PRF.  Additionally, DPPPE recommends denial of her request to change her DAFSC from 51J3 to 92S0 on her CY00A OSB.  DPPPE states that the senior rater does not give a reason why he did not originally include the statements he is now including in the corrected report.  The applicant and her rating chain did not take action on this matter until after she was nonselected for promotion.  The evaluations are accurate reports that she is attempting to make stronger based on nonselection for promotion.  The evaluators were aware of her performance at that time and recorded on the OPRs what they considered a fair and accurate assessment.  Retrospective views do not overcome the assessments made when reports are rendered.  Allowing them to do so places her at a distinct advantage over her peers.

Changes were made to the applicant's duty history for further SSB consideration; however, the request to change the DAFSC during her student status is not supported by the governing directive.  
The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states that since denial is recommended of her request to substitute the OPRs and CY99B PRF, denial is recommended for SSB consideration for the CY99B board.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR for the CY00A board failed in that her record alone was sent to the MLR for a promotion recommendation.  No benchmark records were provided to the board for comparison thus alerting the supplemental MLR board members that her record, the only record they were reviewing, was the record receiving supplemental consideration.  Air Force instructions require that benchmark records from the original boards be utilized at supplemental boards.  

DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999 OPR and 2000 PRF should not be permitted because the reports reflect a "fair and accurate assessment" by both her rater and senior rater of her performance at the time the reports were written.   However, this statement is inaccurate as reflected by letters provided by both her rater and senior rater who readily admit that bad advice was provided and mistakes were made preparing her OPR and PRF.  

Despite AFPC's confirmation that her correct DAFSC while assigned as a student at AFIT was 51J3, and the correct annotation on her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and the revised PRF, her DAFSC was incorrectly recorded as 92S0 on the newly reaccomplished recommendation-only PRF.  

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends partial relief.  DPPP recommends approval of a supplemental student MLR for the CY00A, MLR, using benchmark records from that MLR.  DPPP further recommends that a change to the DAFSC on the recommendation-only PRF if she receives a "Definitely Promote" recommendation and an SSB is deserved.  

DPPP states that supplemental MLRs are conducted in a similar competitive review as the original MLR.  Upon preparation for the 19 Aug 03 supplemental Student MLR, records showed she was in fact the only eligible in her competitive category and must be the only eligible for supplemental consideration.  It has since been determined, however, that benchmark records for the CY00A AF Student MLR do exist.  

The applicant did not provide compelling or new substantial evidence in her 13 Oct 03 response to the BCMR, which would warrant substitution of her 1999 and 2000 OPRs.  The proposed changes do not remove negative information or add positive information.  The proposed reports simply reword the rater and additional rater comments for promotion recommendation.  A simple willingness by evaluators or non-selection for promotion are not valid reasons to reaccomplish performance reports.  

The recommendation-only PRF did in fact reflect the incorrect DAFSC.  However, it was not reviewed by the supplemental MLR members when her record was reviewed to determine DP quality.  She was granted SSB consideration for the CY00A board and was nonselected.  It is unlikely the DAFSC, although in error, would have been a single cause.  If the Board directs DAFSC change to her recommendation-only PRF, there is no cause for SSB consideration based solely on a DAFSC change to her PRF.  

Regarding her request for direct promotion, DPPP states she may be qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a selection board, she may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence she would have been a selectee by the CY00A board, an SSB is in the most advantageous position to render a determination.  

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

For DPPP to suggest that the 11 Jul 03 letter contained only procedural information which was not specifically applicable to her case is ridiculous.  The 11 Jul 03 letter clearly stated the procedures were to be followed in her case.  In fact, there were no references to generic protocol.  Each and every paragraph is specific to her case.  Additionally, the letter clearly states that at least one benchmark record will be utilized and her anonymity protected and the 19 Aug 03 MLR.  DPPP acknowledges that this is the third time her record has received unfair promotion consideration of the CY00a AF Student MLR.  Her record was erroneously considered at the AFSPC MLR rather than the Student MLR, the Student MLR President was given specific circumstantial information, and it was not properly considered at the Student MLR with benchmark records.  

DPPP provides no rationale for recommending denial of substitution of both OPRs and the 1999 PRF and contrary to their recommendation, recommends substitution of the 2000 PRF.  Contrary to DPPPs contention, the ERAB never returned her request without action nor has she ever submitted a request to the ERAB without all four corrected records attached and combined with the explanatory letters from both her rater and senior rater.  Their assertion that the corrected OPRs do not add positive information and simply reword the comments for promotion recommendation is also inaccurate.  Her rater readily admits he made a mistake in not including senior service school and assignment recommendation in her 2000 OPR and acknowledges he provided bad advice to the senior rater.  The senior rater also admits he failed to include job related accomplishments as well as stratification.  

DPPP admits her Recommendation-Only PRF did in fact reflect the incorrect DAFSC and recommend that change.  However, despite the fact that it was recorded improperly no mention was made that this error was made in conjunction with the failure to follow standard procedure in identifying and utilizing benchmark records to protect her anonymity.  

Her complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant some corrective action.  In this respect, the applicant was competed erroneously by the Air Force Space Command MLR for the CY00A lieutenant colonel selection board for a promotion recommendation.  She subsequently received supplemental consideration by the Air Force Student MLR and received a "promote" recommendation.  However, improper procedures were followed during the supplemental MLR review of her records.  It appears that the MLR President was inappropriately provided information regarding her previous MLR.  Accordingly, her record was again considered by supplemental MLR.  However, it now appears that her record was not considered along with benchmark records as required by policy and as a result, the panel members were inappropriately aware that her record was being supplementally considered.  We believe that the applicant was improperly disadvantaged because of the numerous errors and improper handling of the supplemental MLR processes.  Further, we believe that in order to resolve any injustice to the applicant, her record should be submitted before the MLR once again for review and consideration.  If she receives a "Definitely Promote" recommendation, then SSB consideration would be warranted.  We considered her request for direct promotion based on the fact that the Air Force has repeatedly failed to fairly and correctly consider her for promotion; however, we believe the corrective action recommended herein will allow her to compete for a promotion recommendation on an equal footing with her peers and, in turn, compete for promotion on a fair and equitable basis if deemed appropriate.  Therefore, we believe a duly appointed selection board is in the best position to render this determination and its prerogative to do so should only be usurped under extraordinary circumstances.  We note that her DAFSC was incorrectly annotated on her Recommendation-only PRF as "92S0" when it should have read "51J3."  We agree with the Air Force that the error, in and by itself, is not sufficient enough to warrant SSB consideration.  However, if the supplemental MLR awards a DP recommendation, which would lead to subsequent SSB consideration, then the DAFSC can be administratively corrected.  Accordingly, we recommend her records be corrected to the extent indicated below.  

4.  Notwithstanding the above, insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting voidance of the contested reports and PRF.  We note that changes have been made to her 2000 PRF.  After reviewing the evidence of record, to include the statements submitted from her rating chain members, we are not persuaded that the additional changes requested are justified.  In this regard, the statements provided do not reveal that additional changes are necessary.  We have reviewed the requested changes to the contested reports and find, as does the Air Force, that they do not add or remove information that was not previously known to the evaluators but appear to be an attempt to embellish her record, which is inappropriate.  We believe that the comments on the reports were honest assessments of applicant’s performance at the time they were rendered and in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, we do not recommend favorable action on her request to have the contested OPRs and PRF replaced with reaccomplished reports.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that her record be considered for a promotion recommendation by a Supplemental Student Management Level Review (MLR) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Student Management Level Review; and that her records be assessed against an appropriate number of her competitors to determine if she should have been awarded a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.

It is further recommended that if her record receives a DP recommendation, she be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01917 in Executive Session on 24 May 04, 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 28 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Oct 03
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Oct 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 Dec 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 16 Mar 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Mar 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 04, w/atchs.

AFBCMR BC-2003-01917

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 her record be considered for a promotion recommendation by a Supplemental Student Management Level Review (MLR) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Lieutenant Colonel Student Management Level Review; and that her records be assessed against an appropriate number of her competitors to determine if she should have been awarded a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.

	It is further directed that if her record receives a DP recommendation, she be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.