RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00322
		INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 16 Mar 01 through 15 Mar 02 be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished OPR.

He be provided Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an unjust portrayal of his performance and raters’ assessments.  His raters’ assessments conveyed negative messages and erroneously downplayed his performance, which were not their intent.  In their attempt to paint a consistent number one rating of his performance, they unintentionally left the stratification adversely vague.  His raters have prepared a new report to remove these unintentional injustices.  The corrected report is consistent with the strong stratification he received during the rating period.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, supportive statements from his raters, copies of the contested and reaccomplished reports, his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY01B Colonel Board, and documentation pertaining to his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug 98.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 10 Feb 82.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1992 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 8 Sep 92			Meets Standards
	13 May 93			Meets Standards
	31 Mar 94			Meets Standards
	31 Mar 95			Meets Standards
	31 Mar 96			Meets Standards
	15 Mar 97			Meets Standards
	15 Mar 98			Meets Standards
	15 Mar 99			Meets Standards
	15 Mar 00			Meets Standards
	15 Mar 01			Meets Standards
  *#	15 Mar 02			Meets Standards
  ## 31 Dec 02			Meets Standards

* Contested Report.

 # Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY02B Colonel Board.

## Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY03B Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial indicating that it is Air Force policy that an evaluation is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  A simple willingness to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not considered a valid basis for doing so.  The applicant must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on its content.  In this case, the applicant has simply submitted a report where a few of the bullets contain the same known information, but have been merely rephrased.  It appears he is playing a “guessing game” of what the promotion board is looking for in an effort to get a second opportunity at promotion.  In AFPC/DPPPE’s view, there did not appear to have been anything wrong with the report until the applicant’s nonselection for promotion.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO indicated that based on the evidence provided, and the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE, they also recommend denial.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By letter, dated 28 Apr 04, the applicant provided a response to the advisory opinions, reiterating the contested report is erroneous and unjust.  He indicated that in the assessment of his raters, the report contains flaws because it does not accurately portray their intent to document a higher, substantive performance standard and a stronger, clearer recommendation for future operational command assignments.  According to the applicant, there are three very important clarifications in the rewritten OPR to correct the unintentional flaws and errors of omission.  The new wording is substantially different than the original in the rater’s and senior rater’s intended message.  Their desired effect is to set the record straight and for their assessments to be completely clear.

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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, the majority of the Board does not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation submitted in support of his appeal, including the statements from his rater and additional rater, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by AFPC/DPPPE.  It is the majority’s opinion that the statements from the rater and additional rater represent their retrospective judgments of the applicant’s performance which, in their view, do not provide an appropriate basis to find the contested OPR was an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was prepared.  In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the majority agrees with the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPE and adopt their rationale as the basis for their decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00322 in Executive Session on 18 May 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Ms. X voted to grant the appeal but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Mar 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 Apr 04.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Apr 04, w/atch.

                                   Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR	THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) 
FROM:	SAF/MRB
SUBJECT:	AFBCMR Application of 
I have carefully considered the rationale of the Board majority; however, I agree with the minority member that the applicant’s request that his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 16 March 2001 through 15 March 2002 be voided and he be provided promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB) should be favorably considered.
The applicant contends the contested OPR was an unjust portrayal of his performance in that his raters’ assessments inadvertently conveyed negative messages and erroneously downplayed his performance.  I note his assertion is strongly supported by both the rater and additional rater of the report.  They indicated the OPR unintentionally contained vague and ambiguous comments that may have painted the wrong picture of their assessments of the applicant’s performance, and they believe the report should be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished OPR.
The aforementioned statements from the rater and additional rater lead me to believe the contested OPR may not have been an accurate depiction of the applicant’s performance at the time it was rendered.  Therefore, having no basis to question the integrity of these individuals, I believe any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Accordingly, I direct the OPR rendered for the period 16 March 2001 through 15 March 2002 be voided and the applicant’s corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by an SSB for the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Colonel Central Selection Board.

Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR BC-2004-00322

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 ,be corrected to show that:

		a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 16 Mar 01 through 15 Mar 02 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

		b.  The attached OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 16 Mar 01 through 15 Mar 02, which reflects in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, “#2 of 16 Lt Cols--very close to #1...” be inserted in his officer selection folder.

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) Colonel Central Selection Board and for any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 15 Mar 02 was a matter of record.

		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
AF Form 707A