RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-00500
	INDEX CODE 111.01, 111.03, 111.05, 131.01
	 	COUNSEL:  

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 14 Aug 98 be declared void and removed from his records, he be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel or afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration, and he be awarded all back pay, allowances and benefits as well as eligibility to command a squadron. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was deprived of a fair opportunity for promotion consideration. The rater intentionally weakened the contested OPR report because she was noticeably offended and embarrassed when the applicant’s family arrived late at a local community event over which she was presiding. Her relationship with the applicant took a downhill turn thereafter. The rater chose prejudicial and colloquially inappropriate language in the OPR, sending a message to the promotion board that the applicant was not a top-performing officer. She never expressed any dissatisfaction, either formally or informally, to the applicant over his performance as an executive officer. There is no basis-in-fact to justify the rater’s tepid and damaging assessment of the applicant’s overall performance. Counsel contends the rater admitted the content of the OPR was erroneous and unjust in an email. He requests his client be directly promoted to lieutenant colonel.

A general officer, who was the senior rater of the CY01B Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and the reviewer of the OPRs closing 8 May 01 and 02, provides a supporting statement. He indicates he has no doubt that, if the contested report were strengthened or removed, the applicant would have received a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation and been promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Also included in the appeal package is a 20 May 02 email from the rater of the contested report, who states the OPR was not erroneous, just not as strong as it could have been. She adds the executive officer job did the applicant no favors, as it was not his forte. She notes the previous rater of the applicant’s executive officer period also did not include stratification or promotion recommendation.  

The 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 (DOR) of 1 Oct 97. He was the executive officer to the commander (rater) of the 15th Air Base Wing (15 ABW) at Hickam AFB, HI, from approximately 5 Apr 97 to 27 Oct 98. He received two performance reports in this capacity, an OPR for the period closing 14 Aug 97, and the contested report for the period closing 14 Aug 98. Two different raters rendered these OPRs.

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel in/above the promotion zone by the CY01B (5 Nov 01), CY02B (12 Nov 02), and CY03A (8 Jul 03) lieutenant colonel selection boards. All of the PRFs had overall recommendations of “Promote.”  The applicant wrote a letter to the CY02B promotion board indicating, in part, that he was one of a very small group of communications officers with direct combat operations experience but his records consistently did not document his performance because of classification constraints.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the rater is simply letting the applicant know that her assessment was what she intended it to be at the time and she has no valid reason to change her assessment four years later. The rater’s use of the word “Promote” in the May 02 email is an inappropriate comment, according to AFI 36-2402. DPPPE contends that pieces of the email cannot be taken and picked apart without reviewing the entire email and what seems to be the intent of the author. Each accomplishment addressed by the applicant was information the promotion board also had available for review. The applicant has provided nothing to substantiate any of the allegations brought forth in his appeal. A report is not erroneous or unfair because a member believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact future opportunities. The rater clearly stands by her original assessment and the fact that the applicant was not selected for promotion does not make her assessment inaccurate, unjust, or unfair. Denial is recommended. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing to add to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory. The applicant’s record clearly does not warrant direct promotion or SSB consideration.  Regarding direct promotion, both Congress and DOD have made clear their intent that when errors are perceived to ultimately affect promotion, they should be addressed and resolved through the use of SSBs. DPPPO recommends denial for direct promotion and SSB consideration.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel strongly disagrees with and takes exception to what he contends are the Air Force’s grossly incorrect assertions. In stating she could have strengthened the OPR by including the fact the applicant “was in the top 10% of my field graders,” the rater admitted the contested report is an inaccurate reflection of his performance.  It is hardly surprising an officer who intentionally weakens an OPR will later refuse to admit her error. Any chance of obtaining relief from willfully vindictive raters would be foreclosed if the Board relied simply on the rater’s refusal to endorse a corrected OPR as evidence the contested report contains no errors or injustices. By intentionally choosing highly prejudicial language in her bottom-line assessment, the rater undermined the applicant’s chances for promotion to lieutenant colonel. The advisory author was wrong in downplaying the senior rater’s strong supporting statement and in portraying the selection board’s decision as one based on a complete and accurate record when, in truth, it was not. The Board should grant the applicant the relief requested.

A complete copy of counsel’s response 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 error or injustice to warrant voiding the contested report and granting SSB consideration. After reviewing the supporting documentation, a majority of the Board is persuaded the embarrassing incident inadvertently caused by the applicant’s family may have tarnished the rater's assessment of his entire performance. While open to interpretation, the rater’s 20 May 02 email appears to indicate she deliberately weakened the 14 Aug 98 OPR.  We cannot determine with certainty whether she did this because she sincerely believed the applicant’s performance deserved this assessment or if she was being vindictive because of the offense she was noted to have taken at the tardy arrival of the applicant’s family. Regardless, to offset the possibility of an injustice, the Board majority prefers to resolve any doubt in this case in the applicant’s favor. Additionally, the CY01B PRF senior rater’s statement supports correcting the applicant’s record to improve his chances for a “Definitely Promote” recommendation and selection for promotion.  We cannot state categorically that the OPR was the cause of the applicant’s nonselection. However, given that rater bias may have adversely impacted the applicant’s promotion opportunities, the majority of the Board recommends the contested report be declared void and removed from his records.

4.  The applicant's requests for eligibility for squadron command and direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel were not favorably considered. Air Force authorities are in the best position to assess the needs of the service and the qualifications of the individual concerned.  As for direct promotion, it is our understanding that officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby many factors are carefully assessed by selection boards.  An officer may be qualified for promotion but, in the judgment of a selection board vested with the discretionary authority to make the selections, may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Therefore, absent clear-cut evidence he would have been a selectee had his folder reflected the recommended change, the Board majority believes a duly constituted selection board applying the complete promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position to render this vital determination, and its prerogative to do so should only be usurped under extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, the majority of the Board recommends the applicant’s corrected records be afforded SSB consideration.

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 to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 15 August 1997 through 14 August 1998, be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, and for any other selection board for which the OPR was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 18 May 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended the records be corrected as indicated.  Ms. XXXXX voted to deny and has submitted a Minority Report at Exhibit G.  The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00500 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Mar 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 7 May 04.
   Exhibit G.  Minority Report.

                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2004-00500

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 the Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 15 August 1997 through 14 August 1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, and for any other selection board for which the OPR was a matter of record.

                                                                          Director
                                                                          Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR BC-2004-00500

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  Minority Report on AFBCMR Application of

	In Executive Session on May 18, 2004, my colleagues voted to void the applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing August 14, 1998, and granting him Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration beginning with the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  Counsel asserted the rater held a grudge against the applicant because she had been embarrassed and offended by his family’s late arrival at a function over which she was presiding.  The majority of the Board was persuaded this incident prejudiced the rater’s judgment of the applicant as evidenced, in part, by her May 20, 2002, email message (Exhibit A).  

	The rater states in her email that the August 14, 1998, OPR “was not erroneous” but “just not as strong as it could have been” [my emphasis].  However, a careful reading of the rater’s statement in its entirety and an objective review of the applicant’s record persuade me that the contested OPR is not the result of rater bias.  Almost any given performance evaluation could be made stronger; the point is whether an evaluation should be made stronger.  I believe the rater was explaining to the applicant that the contested OPR could have been stronger, but his performance did not demonstrate that it should have been.  

	The rater also noted the applicant’s record was relatively weak for about the first six or seven years and he lacked squadron command experience. She pointed out the applicant’s Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) lacked stratification, as did the previous OPR, when the applicant also served as an executive officer to an earlier rater.  In addition to providing the applicant with reasons as to why his record may not have been as competitive as others’ reviewed by the selection board, the rater told him she had no clear evidence four years later to indicate her evaluation of him in 1998 was inaccurate.

	The CY01B PRF senior rater supports strengthening or removing the contested report, stating this would improve the applicant’s chances for a “Definitely Promote” recommendation on his PRF and selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  No one disputes this action would enhance the applicant’s records.

	The AFBCMR plays a vital role in ensuring that our uniformed members are treated fairly and justly. However, I find no compelling basis to conclude that there was an error or an injustice or that the contested OPR is biased and inaccurate.  Therefore, I strongly believe there are no grounds for voiding the August 14, 1998, report.  The mere fact that the report may have led to his nonselection is insufficient justification for enhancing or removing it.  Consequently, I recommend the Board majority’s recommendation to grant this appeal be overturned.  

					Board Member