RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02726
				INDEX CODE:  131.00

				COUNSEL:  None

				HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 21 May 2001 be replaced with a reaccomplished report.

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2002 Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR in question does not contain the information that his rater intended for it to contain.  His rater stated he did not intend to make any omissions that would convey a negative message and it would be unjust for the current OPR to stand.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B lieutenant colonel CSB.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the applicant's appeal because they believe the evidence does not support the rater’s contention that he intended at the time to remove any negative information.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  21 May 99		Meets Standards
			  21 May 00		Meets Standards
			 *21 May 01		Meets Standards
			   9 May 02		AF Form 475
			   9 May 03		Meets Standards
			   9 May 04		Meets Standards

*Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant’s rater provided a reaccomplished report to replace the contested report.  His rater stated he initially wrote the report with negative information, however, after meeting with the applicant and clearing up a misconception chose to remove any negative connotations from the report.  However, nothing has been provided to prove the contested report was unjust based on the content as initially written.  The applicant now after two years and the convening of the CSB, seeks replacement of the report.  HQ AFPC/DPPE further states there are a series of items the rater now contends he accidentally failed to fix after the meeting between him and the applicant.  It is difficult to conceive the rater inadvertently failed to fix all the intended corrections of the contested report.  HQ AFPC/DPPPE believes the report was written and submitted as intended and the rater now after the applicant’s nonselection for promotion has a retrospective view of the events; which is not grounds to allow the report to be corrected at this point.  A request based solely on willingness by evaluators to change reports after nonselection of promotion should not be favorably considered unless it is proved the report was erroneous or unjust based on content.  They recommend the requested relief be denied.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the applicant’s request to have his 21 May 2001 OPR replaced be denied.  They further state SSB consideration is not warranted.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 October 2004, for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

On 14 December 2004, the applicant requested SSB consideration be included in his application for correction of records Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board majority is unpersuaded the requested relief should be granted.  Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, the Board majority does not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant contends his rater, due to a misunderstanding, did not accurately reflect his performance on his 21 May 2001 OPR.  The applicant provides a letter from his rater attesting that he initially wrote the report to appear negative, but after discussing the situation with the applicant, chose to remove any negative information from the report; however, during the rewrite of the report, he failed to fill in any white space, make a stratification statement, or make an SJA recommendation.  The Board majority finds it difficult to conceive the rater inadvertently failed to correct these items in his rewrite of the OPR.  While the majority has no reason to doubt the rater’s sincerity, the Board majority believes the rater’s initial statement that he intended for the report to have a negative connotation more accurately reflects his perception of the applicant’s performance during the contested time period.  Likewise, the majority notes the statement from the additional rater, but again we are not persuaded the contested report is inaccurate as written.  Furthermore, the applicant has not provided persuasive evidence the report was erroneous or unjust based on the content as written.  Therefore, based on evidence provided, the Board majority finds no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-02726 in Executive Session on 16 and 27 December 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Ms. XXXXXX voted to grant, but she does not wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant’s Officer Selection Brief
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE & HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 
				20 Oct 04.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant’s addendum to DD Form 149,
				Dated 14 Dec 04.

					
					Panel Chair

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

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case of 

I have carefully considered all of the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the majority of the AFBCMR panel that the applicant’s requests for substitution of an Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 22 May 2000 through 21 May 2001 containing a stratification statement and an assignment recommendation and reconsideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2002 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board should be denied.

	The applicant was assigned as the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate for the 305th Air Mobility Wing from May 1999 through May 2001.  The applicant contends his rater, as a result of a misunderstanding, prepared a draft report covering the contested time period to convey negative information about his perception of a situation which occurred in January 2001.  It appears the rater thought the applicant refused to go on temporary duty (TDY) to Pope AFB in January 2001.  However, after discussing the situation with the applicant, the rater realized his perception of the event was incorrect and decided to revise the draft version of the OPR which, when finalized, is the contested report under review.  According to the rater, when he revised the draft OPR to remove any negative connotations, he failed to remove/fill-in the white space, make a stratification statement, and a staff judge advocate (SJA) recommendation.  In his letter, the rater states he did not realize the implications of the omissions and that he did not intend to make any of those omissions and convey such a message.  He further states he believes it would be unjust for the contested OPR to stand.  The rater presented the reaccomplished OPR to the additional rater who concurred the contested OPR should be reaccomplished.

	After reviewing the statements from the applicant and the rating chain, I am persuaded the contested report does not reflect an accurate assessment of the applicant’s duty performance during the contested time period.  The applicant’s rating chain agrees the reaccomplished report better reflects his work performance for that time period.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of a basis to question the integrity of the rater and additional rater, the benefit of any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.  Therefore, I am persuaded the reaccomplished report more accurately reflects the applicant’s accomplishments during the contested time period.  Accordingly, it is my decision that his requests for substitution of the OPR containing a stratification statement and an assignment recommendation and reconsideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel by all selection boards that the original report were a matter of record be approved.

					
					Director
					Air Force Review Boards Agency

AFBCMR BC-2004-02726

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 22 May 2000 through 21 May 2001, be, and hereby is declared void and removed from his records.

		b.	The attached reaccomplished Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 22 May 2000 through 22 May 2001, indicating in Section VI, 
“ - A++ officer/judge advocate. In resident SSS and follow-on assignment as a Staff Judge Advocate a must!” be accepted for file in its proper sequence.

		c.	The attached reaacomplished OPR be amended in the date blocks of Sections VI and VII by adding the dates 22 May 2001 and 5 July 2001, respectively.

	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 2002B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and for any subsequent boards for which the OPR was a matter of record.

					
					Director
					Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaccomplished OPR