RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03034,
				CASE 2
				INDEX CODE:  131.00

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) for the periods ending 2 January 2000, 2001, 2002 be replaced with reaccomplished reports.

2.	His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2002B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be replaced with a reaccomplished report and award of a definitely promote promotion recommendation.

3.	His corrected records be considered for Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY02B central lieutenant colonel selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was assigned to the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate through the Air Force Element for Medical Support from March 1999 through March 2002.  During this time he received three OPRs.  For each report, he provided his rater with bullets reflecting his accomplishments for the rating period.  Each time his rater softened the language and removed adjectives, and made the reports comparable to Marine Corps performance reports.  His rater would not consider statements of stratification or statements of strong support for his future potential as these items were not appropriate to the Marine Corps style performance reports.  His rater refused to discuss his OPRs with anyone in the Air Force chain below an O-6 and would not incorporate the comments of the O-6 in the chain.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

The Board previously reviewed and granted a request to have the citation for the applicant’s Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) awarded for the period 5-22 March 1999 be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by an SSB.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B central lieutenant CSB.  He was considered by the SSB that convened on 9 December 2003, with inclusion of the citation for the DMSM in his Officer Selection Record.  The results for this board will not be published until March 2004.

The applicant appealed the contested reports under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the applicant's appeal stating, “Major          ’s rater was a USMC Colonel, but his additional rater/reviewer was a USAF Brig Gen who served as the primary quality control level to guard against inaccuracy and exaggeration on his reports.”  The ERAB further stated “A simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.”

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			 *2 Jan 00		Meets Standards
			 *2 Jan 01		Meets Standards
			 *2 Jan 02		Meets Standards

*Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant’s rater and senior rater provided reaccomplished reports to replace the contested reports.  However, nothing had been provided to prove that the contested reports were unjust based on their content as initially written.  They further reiterate and fully concur with the ERAB’s finding.  The applicant’s rater was a Marine Corps officer; his additional rater was an Air Force Brigadier General who was aware of Air Force policies concerning evaluation reports.  If the additional rater had concerns with the outcome of the applicant’s report, he could and should have addressed them at that time.  Nor, was there any indication by the rating chain of any concerns with the applicant’s reports until his nonselection for promotion.  Also, it is noted that the additional rater was the same on all three reports and had ample opportunity to address any concerns during that time.

AFPC/DPPPE further states the applicant’s request for his PRF for CY02B to reflect “a definitely promote” rating does not remove negative and or add positive information, which was not previously known.  Therefore, it would not be fair to allow the applicant a second look for promotion not offered other servicemembers.  Based on the documentation provided, DPPPE recommends the requested relief be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory and has nothing further to add and since DPPPE recommends denying the requested relief, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he submitted as evidence his selection as Air Force Physicist of the year for 2001, his Defense Meritorious Service Medal for the three-year period and letters from his rater and senior rater supporting his request.  This evidence clearly shows the performance reports were unjust and based on the rater’s comments to him and his letter of support, indicates the rater believes he should serve in the higher grade.

Air Force OPRs must be written in a specific style to be competitive.  His rater wrote strong reports in the Marine Corps style.  His rater resisted effort by the Air Force chain of command to incorporate stronger language especially with respect to stratification, nor would he propose stronger verbiage to his senior rater.  As a result, his performance reports were mediocre and definitely impacted his chance for promotion (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are unpersuaded the requested relief should be granted.  Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, the Board does not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did not provide any evidence as to why the reports are not accurate reflections of his performance.  Although, he provided documentation from his rating chain in support of his requests, he did not provide persuasive evidence the reports were erroneous or unjust based on their content as written.  Furthermore, his additional rater for all three reports was a USAF Brigadier General who was well aware of the AF policies regarding OPRs.  Therefore, based on evidence provided, the Board finds no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03034 in Executive Session on 10 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 9 Sep 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	AFBCMR, ROP, dated 29 Jul 03
	Exhibit C.	Applicant's Officer Selection Brief.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 31 Oct 03.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Nov 03.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
	Exhibit G.	Applicant’s Response, dated 5 Jan 04.