RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03138

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports (OPR) closing out   30 September 1998, 30 September 1999, 30 September 2000 and     31 July 2001 be removed and replaced with reaccomplished reports covering the same periods and consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Years 2001B (CY01B), 2002B (CY02B), and 2003A (CY03A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During her records review with AFPC and AFMC personnelists after her in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) Lt Col board, the primary areas that were highlighted as being “lacking” in her records were job pushes, enthusiasm, and distinction/stratification.  Overall, they stated that her records needed more job pushes, correct PME recommendations, a command or SPO director push and stratification among peers, specifically in her top four OPRs (98-01).

Armed with this information, she approached two of the raters’ on her last four OPRs and asked them to review their inputs.  They did and both of them agreed that the OPRs they had written lacked some of these items and may have sent a negative message to the board, which they did not intend to do.  Therefore, each rater reaccomplished their OPRs.

In September 2002, she submitted an application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to substitute her current OPRs closing out 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1990 for corrected OPRs.  The corrected OPRs added job pushes, stratification, and corrected PME recommendations.  The ERAB denied her request stating that “While job, PME, and command recommendations, as well as stratifications, are encouraged, they are not mandatory comments.  Therefore, the lack of these recommendations does not cause the report to be erroneous or unjust.”  She found this confusing given the information advertised to officers.

She understands that today’s promotion environment is extremely tough.  With more quality people than available promotions, some good people will not be promoted.  However, her performance to date has been nothing but outstanding as voiced by her raters/additional raters.  According to AFPC and AFMC promotion counselors, the current OPRs may have left a perception that a negative message was being sent.  That was not the case as demonstrated by the disadvantage during the central selection board and subsequent APZ boards.  All she asks is that she be given a fair opportunity, which she believes she, earned to compete equally with her peers with OPRs that state her true potential.

For Air Force members like her, the message is clear…the statements need to be in her OPRs and/PRFs if promotion is desired.  Her raters and additional raters believe this also and have reaccomplished her OPRs due to her outstanding job performance and potential.  Due to the above reasons, she is requesting review of her request to change her OPRs and reconsideration by Special Selection Board in her IPZ and subsequent above-the-zone (APZ) boards.  

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 with a date of rank of 1 March 1998.

The applicant has three nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01A, CY02B and CY03A central lieutenant colonel selection boards. 

On 17 April 2001, the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAM) approved the applicant’s appeal to remove the OPR closing out 30 September 2000 and replacing it with a corrected report.

On 11 September 2003, the applicant submitted an appeal regarding the 30 September 1998 and 30 September 1999 OPRs to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) stating the rater’s inexperience resulted in an omitted job recommendation and contained an incorrect PME push. Her request was reviewed by the ERAB and determined while job, PME, and command recommendations, as well as stratifications, are encouraged, they are not mandatory comments.  Therefore, the lack of these recommendations does not cause the report to be erroneous or unjust.  Additionally, the ERAB noted that since the applicant did not complete ACSC in-residence, she was still eligible for an ISS recommendation in the 30 September 1999 OPR.  Her last board to be selected for in-residence attendance was after the report’s closeout date; therefore, the OPR contained the correct recommendation.  The ERAB was not convinced by the applicant's documentation provided to the board. 

OER/OPR profile since 1992, follows: 

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

				01 May 97	Meets Standards
				28 Feb 98	Meets Standards
			*	30 Sep 98	Meets Standards
			*	30 Sep 99	Meets Standards
			*	30 Sep 00	Meets Standards
			* 	31 Jul 01	Meets Standards
				30 Jul 02	Meets Standards
				27 Feb 03	Meets Standards

* Contested reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial and stated that the evidence is primarily opinionated and the rating chain does not provide reasons why they support the changes four years later other than wanting to get the applicant promoted.  To allow the applicant to embellish four years of performance goes against the integrity and fairness of the AF officer evaluation system and promotion process.  If she perceived those reports to be in error, she should have initiated action prior to the Central Selection Board, as indicated in the DoD Directive 1320.11, paragraph 4.3.

Applicant is simply trying to strengthen her records based on nonselection counseling.  The member refers to AFPC guidance that provides information for officers guiding them as to what is needed for a strong promotion potential report.  However, this is provided for assistance in writing reports “prior” to the Central Selection Board.  While the applicant contends guidance from the AFPC web site and ERAB’s decision is contradictory, they strongly disagree.  The guidance is accurate in that stratification, PME, and command pushes send a strong message to the promotion boards.  The ERAB was also accurate, however, in stating these recommendations “are not mandatory comments.  Therefore, the lack of recommendations does not cause the report to be erroneous or unjust.”  If all nonselection were allowed to strengthen their report after the board had convened because they were told which areas were weak, then the integrity of the promotion system would be lost, and all members would be granted a second chance at promotion.  

The applicant states that her 1998 to 2001 reports were lacking in several areas that are required for a member to get promoted.  The applicant provided an outline detailing, in her opinion, what reports were weak or missing stratification and command pushes.  However, every Air Force member who is nonselected for promotion could easily find something that would make their record stronger.  The applicant received nonselection counseling (a service provided by AFPC) and bases her “after the fact” argument on that counseling.  The counseling, however, does not provide a “black and white” answer as to why a person was not selected, but rather a general comparison of that member’s record against selectees--it does not provide a forum to re-write history, nor entitle a second look at promotion.

AFPC/DPPPE complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the DPPPE advisory and have nothing further to add.  They believe that since DPPPE recommends disapproval, an SSB consideration is not warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, we are not persuaded the applicant should be provided the requested relief.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the comments and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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, the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend that the contested reports be reaccomplished.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-03138 in Executive Session on 8 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 11 Sep 03, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 Oct 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 31 Oct 03.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Response, dated 25 Nov 03.