RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00821
			               (Case 2)

		INDEX CODE:  131.00, 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 11 September 2000 through 10 September 2001, be replaced with the revised OPR he provided, reflecting the words “squadron command equivalent” in Section III, Block 2.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B (5 November 2001) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, with the corrected OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His duty status was not accurately seen by the CY01B selection board as being a squadron commander equivalent, since Section I, Block 8, of the contested OPR identified his duty status as only a flight commander.  He believes the misinterpretation of his duty status resulted in his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of the contested and revised OPRs, statements from his rating chain and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 6 December 1985.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 January 1998.  The following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		   30 Jun 98	Meets Standards (MS)
		   28 Feb 99	     MS
		   28 Feb 00	     MS
		   10 Sep 00	     MS
		#* 10 Sep 01	     MS
		##  6 Aug 02	     MS
		### 8 Apr 03	     MS
		    8 Apr 04	     MS

*  Contested OPR

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Central Board, which convened on 5 November 2001.

## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel Central Board, which convened on 12 November 2002.

### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY03A Lieutenant Colonel Central Board, which convened on 8 July 2003.

A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) on 27 October 2003.

In 2003, applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) for replacement of his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY01B (P0501B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board with a revised PRF and Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration.  His application was denied by the Board on 9 July 2003.

Information maintained in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reveals that the applicant currently has an established date of separation of 31 December 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE, recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that the contested OPR clearly identifies the applicant’s duties as being equivalent to those of any squadron commander.  His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of C65F3 clearly has the “C” commander prefix and his duty title clearly states “commander.”  The first bullet in Section VI clearly refers to the applicant as a “unit commander.”  In the evaluators overall assessments, they clearly suggest that the applicant was serving as a commander at that time and upon completion of his current tour, he should be selected for a larger command position.  The Air Force views evaluation reports as most accurate when written and become a matter of record.  There are no errors or injustices cited in the contested OPR.  Retrospective views of evaluators, based on nonselect counseling, does not constitute an avenue for rewriting and reconsideration of the member’s performance records.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory regarding the applicant’s request to substitute his 10 September 2001 OPR and have nothing further to add.  Since DPPPE recommend denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the circumstances, which triggered discovery of the error, do not invalidate the fact that an error actually occurred requiring correction of the contested OPR.  HQ AFPC/DPPPE restated the ERAB decision in their advisory opinion.  The ERAB decision, although clearly reaching an unfavorable conclusion, supports his position.  The only method a promotion board could take to determine his position was equivalent to a squadron commander would be to know that the duties are commensurate with those of a squadron commander.  During a promotion board, with just minutes to review a record, the board member is likely to simply draw the conclusion that his status was flight commander without stopping to equate the duties to that of a squadron commander.  The simple addition of the words squadron command equivalent would significantly reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and increase the ability of the board to score the record more fairly/equally.  HQ AFPC/DPPPE made its most flagrant error when they referred to a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) containing a statement that he was selected as “USAFE Comptroller Squadron Commander of the year for 2001….”  The USAFE award, although earned, was not announced in time to be included in the PRF or the OPR.  The PRF from the P0501B selection board was not part of his application package, is not part of the official personnel record, and does not seem relevant to this issue.  The intent of the rater and senior rater, at the time the report was written, was to reflect his duty status as squadron commander.  This request before the AFBCMR is not to alter their view based on a retrospective opinion, but to clarify duty status that was inadvertently/unintentionally left unclear and open to unjust misinterpretation.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, including the statements from the rating chain, the Board majority is unpersuaded that the contested report should be altered.  In this respect, the Board majority noted the new policy redesignating the comptroller flight in question to a “squadron” was approved subsequent to the contested report becoming a matter of record.  Inasmuch as the other 12 remaining comptroller flight units were redesignated to comptroller squadrons during this same time period, the Board majority finds no evidence showing the applicant was inequitably treated in comparison to similarly situated officers.  Additionally, the Board majority views the statements by the rating chain, so long after the closeout of the report, as retrospective assessments, written as well-meaning after-the-fact attempts to enhance the applicant’s promotability.  Such motivations are not sufficient to support findings that the reports themselves are erroneous or unjust.  In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a determination that the applicant’s record before the duly constituted selection board was unable to make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability in relation to his peers, the Board majority 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, Ms. and Ms. voted to deny applicant's request.  Mr.  voted to grant the applicant's request but did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00821.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Apr 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letters from Applicant, dated 9 Jun 04, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2004-00821

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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT
 
	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.