RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00072
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL: 

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2002B Medical Service Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB), with inclusion of an AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, for the period covering 16 October 1995 through 21 December 1995, an overseas (OS) duty entry for his assignment to RAF Lakenheath UK, and a copy of his American College of Health Executives (ACHE) Fellow Certificate.

2.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 26 May 2001 through 25 May 2002, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Error #1:  Three highly significant matters, through no fault of his, are missing from his file.  Error #2:  His “on top” report is a clumsily written document lacking specific details or the “push” required for advancement.  Error #3:  As a matter of integrity, he would not countenance phony reporting in response to an official IG inquiry.  

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a summary memorandum, with a copy of his training report mission from the promotion file, a copy of his Fellowship in American College of Healthcare Executives Certificate, a copy of e-mails between the applicant and his point of contact, a copy of the contested OPR, a copy of his PRF, a copy of a letter from his senior rater, and seven charts summarizing information in his application.  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 captain.  Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY02B, CY03A and CY03B Selection Boards.  The applicant’s OPR profile since 1996, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

              21 Dec 95               Training Report
              14 Aug 96           Meets Standards (MS)
              25 May 97                  MS
              25 May 98                  MS
              25 May 99                  MS
              25 May 00                  MS
              14 Jul 00               Training Report
              25 May 01                  MS
             *25 May 02                  MS
               3 Feb 03                  MS
               8 Sep 03                  MS

*Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE states it is noted in AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.1, “A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact future promotion career opportunities.  A simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.  It must be proven the report is erroneous or unjust based on its content.”

In reference to the letter of support provided by the applicant’s additional rater at the time the report was written, they note retrospective views of evaluators months or even years after an evaluation does not constitute an avenue for rewriting and/or reconsideration of the member’s performance records.

In accordance with DOD Directive 1320.11, paragraph 4.3, “A Special Selection Board shall not, under Section 628(b) or 14502(b) of reference (b), consider any officer who might, by maintaining reasonably careful records, have discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on which the original board based its decision against promotion.”

In summary, DPPPE noted the Air Force views an evaluation report as most accurate when written and it becomes a matter of record.  Given the limited space to provide a written assessment on evaluation reports, evaluators must make a conscious decision on what accomplishments/statements to include on the report.  An omission does not constitute an error.  There are no errors or injustices cited in the OPR.  Once again retrospective views of evaluators months or even years after an evaluation do not constitute an avenue for rewriting and/or reconsideration of the member’s performance records.  Therefore, they recommend denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO states they do not refute the applicant’s assertion that the training report, overseas duty history entry, and board certification were not included in his selection record at the time the original board convened.

DPPPO notes counsel’s statement that the promotion board may have questioned the absence of the 1995 training report from the selection record, more specifically, his presuming the board may have concluded the applicant either failed the mandatory Health Services Administration course or declined to attend.  They believe this is a faulty assertion.  Every officer in the MSC career field is required to attend this course in order to advance to a qualified level in their Air Force specialty; for example, AFSC 41A1 (entry level) progresses to AFSC 41A3 (qualified level).  If the officer had declined training or failed this training, it is highly unlikely he would have continued to receive assignments with duties at the qualified “3” level from 1997 to his in-the-promotion zone look in October 2002 and thereafter.  In addition, when reviewing the training report, they failed to discover significant distinctions which would set the applicant apart from other school attendees (his peers) other than the fact he was designated a group leader, as counsel states, “by virtue of his seniority.”  They assumed the applicant was higher ranking to the other students and therefore expected to fulfill this responsibility.  In conclusion, they firmly believe this report did not represent a tiebreaker regarding the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.

DPPPO is of the same opinion regarding the missing overseas duty history.  As counsel brings to light, this assignment was well documented on the applicant’s top two OPRs and on a decoration citation, so the experience was considered during the promotion deliberation process.  The question is, as counsel repeatedly speaks to, whether the applicant displayed concern for the accuracy of his records.  In their deduction of the facts regarding both the training report and missing Officer Selection Brief (OSB) entry, he did not.  They find it difficult to rely on the e-mail correspondence that took place between the applicant and Captain D--- as proof the applicant exercised proper care of his records.  Specifically, never once does Captain D--- tell the applicant that his training report was filed in his Officer Selection Record (OSR).  In fact, when reviewing the e-mail, Captain D--- broke down the exact contents of the record.  Based on this information, the error (missing training report) was clearly discoverable, but the applicant failed to react or provide evidence to show what he did with this information.  Furthermore, regarding the overseas history entry, Captain D--- was not in a capacity nor was it his responsibility to ensure this information was reflected on the OSB.  With that, DPPPO notes Captain D--- specifically told the applicant to verify this data himself.  This error was discoverable and fixable had the applicant in fact carefully reviewed the Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) and taken the appropriate corrective action as reflected on the OPB instruction handout, which counsel alleges the applicant did, but provides no support for this claim.

In reference to the omitted ACHE board certification, they note that this information is masked for all MSC officers through the grade of major.  This means the information was intentionally removed from the selection record and not present on the brief viewed by the promotion board.  All MSC officers compete to major in this manner, so to allow the applicant to have this certificate included in his OSR would create bias in the current promotion process.

They reviewed the comments in the AFPC/DPPPE advisory concerning the applicant’s request to remove the contested OPR and have nothing further to add.  Since the advisory recommends denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.  They believe the single training report and overseas duty entry were immaterial and not likely the precursor to the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.  They trust the results of the original board were based on a complete review of the applicant’s entire record, assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and education.  Furthermore, they uphold DOD policy delivered via AFI 36-2501, paragraph 6.3.2.2, which states SSBs will not convene if by exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission and could have taken corrective action before the originally scheduled board convened; which in their opinion, he did not.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 7 May 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  On 20 May 2004, the applicant requested his application be temporarily withdrawn (Ex E).

In a letter dated 26 July 2004, applicant requested his application be reopened and responded to each contention.  Contention #1:  He did not exercise due diligence in correcting his record.  He responds in fact, he took a step beyond a reasonable review, asking his Field Grade Officer representative at AFPC to examine his record for anything missing.  His clear intent was a thorough review.  His note from Captain D--- assured him that his record was complete and that all key items were present.  It was redundant to visit AFPC in person and verify his record.  He relied on the competence and regularity of the system, plus the assurance of his representative.

Contention #2:  It did not matter that the training report and overseas duty history were missing from his promotion file.  He asks how one can guess at the inner workings of a promotion board?  His understanding is that omissions of even minor matters can be tiebreakers, given the extreme level of competition in his Corps.  The Chief of the MSC Utilization Branch, who was also Captain D---‘s supervisor, advised him in nonselect counseling given on 16 January 2003 that even the slightest omission could be fatal.

Contention #3:  It was not Captain D---‘s role to assist with evaluating the completeness of his record.  He states it surely was his role as liaison to MSCs in matters of assignments and promotion records.  Furthermore, in corresponding with him, he took on the role of trusted agent to validate the completeness and accuracy of his records.  He responded with a note that indicated everything was OK.

Contention #4:  He was a leader in the training course “by virtue of seniority,” so it was not relevant to leadership.  He states, this is the usual way leaders are determined in the training environment.  It was still highly relevant.  Even though new to the Air Force, his training report demonstrated solid leadership during the 10-week course.

Contention #5:  The letter of support by Col S--- on his behalf is a retrospective review of an evaluator.  He states Col S---‘s letter is an attempt to bring justice to his promotion proceedings by freely admitting there were errors and omissions made in the OPR.  This letter is a strong statement that his OPR should be voided and there should be a Special Selection Board.

Contention #6:  Subsequent above-the-zone promotion boards did not promote him.  He states, this has no relevance.  The key board, when his chance of promotion was at its greatest, was his in-the-zone 2002 board.

Contention #7:  It doesn’t matter that his board certification was missing from his promotion file.  He states it is the norm to have certification by the lieutenant colonel level, so few captains had it in 2002 when meeting the board.  He exceeded this standard by attaining the level of Fellow, an achievement expected of CEOs/Commanders.  This achievement earns an M prefix next to the 41A3 AFSC.  The board might have seen the M prefix and then looked for the missing board certification in his promotion file.

The advisory opinions have conceded that his training report and overseas duty history were absent.  These omissions alone should trigger a Special Selection Board.  It is crucial to understand that other outcome-determination matters were missing as well.  The only fair redress is to convene a Special Selection Board to assess his entire record.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 injustice with respect to the applicant’s request for consideration by a Special Selection Board for promotion to major by the CY02B Medical Service Corps Central Selection Board with inclusion of his initial Training Report and a corrected OSB showing his overseas assignment to RAF Lakenheath.  The Air Force has indicated that they cannot refute the applicant’s assertion that the training report and overseas duty history entry were not included in his selection record at the time the original board convened.  While it cannot be conclusively determined whether or not the missing information was the reason for applicant’s nonselection for promotion by the Board in question, we do believe that its absence served to deprive him of full and fair consideration.  In view of the foregoing and in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we recommend that his record, to include the missing training report and the updated OSB, reflecting his assignment to RAF Lakenheath UK for the period 21 July 1998 to 29 June 2001, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY02B Medical Service Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB).

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice with respect to the applicant’s requests that his American College of Health Executives (ACHE) Fellow Certificate be placed in his records and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 26 May 2001 through 25 May 2002 be declared void and removed from his records.  The appropriate Air Force offices have adequately addressed the applicant’s contentions and we are in agreement with their comments and recommendation.  We have seen no evidence by the applicant indicating he has been treated differently from other similarly situated members with respect to his ACHE Fellowship Certificate.  As to his request for removal of his OPR closing 25 May 2002, we have carefully reviewed the statement by the additional rater of the contested report and do not find its contents support a finding the report is erroneous or unjust.  Rather, it appears that this officer’s comments are a well-intentioned after-the-fact effort to improve the applicant’s promotion opportunities, which, in our view, is not an adequate basis to remove the report from the record.  The additional rater does not relate any information that was unavailable to him at the time he and the other evaluators prepared the report nor does he indicate the information contained in the report is in error, merely that the report could have been written differently -- stronger.  While we appreciate the admiration this officer may have for the applicant, none of these considerations are, in our view, in and by themselves, appropriate bases to favorably consider the applicant’s request that the report be removed from his records.  Accordingly, the above-discussed requests by the applicant are denied.

5.  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 by amending his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Major Medical Service Corps Central Selection Board to reflect his overseas assignment to RAF Lakenheath, UK, during the period 21 July 1998 to 29 June 2001.

His record, including the AF Form 475, Education Training Report, rendered for the period 16 October 1995 through 21 December 1995, and his corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY02B Medical Service Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 January 2005, 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 5 Jan 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 15 Apr 04, w/atchs.

   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04 and Withdrawal
                Request dated 20 May 04.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 26 Jul 04.

                                   Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00072

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 by amending his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B)Major Medical Service Corps Central Selection Board, to reflect his overseas assignment to RAF Lakenheath, UK, during the period 21 July 1998 to 29 June 2001.

	His record, including the AF Form 475, Education Training Report, rendered for the period 16 October 1995 through 21 December 1995, and his corrected OSB, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY02B Medical Service Corps (MSC) Central Selection Board (CSB).

					
					Director
					Air Force Review Boards Agency