RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03271
		INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
		COUNSEL: NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be directly promoted to the grade of brigadier general (0-7) or she receive expeditious Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the Calendar Year 2007 (CY07) Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her officer selection record (OSR) that met the CY07 Air Force Reserve General Officer Selection Board contained an erroneous Officer Performance Report (OPR), which was copied from a previous report.  The error was discovered during the Board, but no effort was made to correct the error until after the Board had adjourned. This error prevented her from receiving fair consideration for promotion.

In support of the request, the applicant submitted a personal statement, an AF IMT Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, an AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, three AF IMT 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, dated 26 Mar 07, 10 Jul 06, and 26 Mar 07, respectively, a copy of a Memorandum for Record – Administrative Error in OPR Processing, and several emails.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Reserves in the grade of colonel, with a date of rank of 1 May 01.  She was considered and non-selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the CY07 Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board, which convened on 20 Jul 07.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/DPG recommends denial.  DPG states, in part, that according to AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, Para 1.7.2, eligible officers are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of their military personnel data systems (MLPDS) data and officer selection records prior to the board convening date.  Paragraph 1.7.4 states, eligible officers should review Promotion Recommendation Forms and OPRs for accuracy and discuss any concerns with rating officials, pointing out any omissions of facts, such as significant achievements, wrong duty title, or duty description.  On 28 Mar 07, the applicant was notified  via email, of her eligibility for the aforementioned promotion board, and on 13 Apr 07, she was sent a follow-up email containing information recommending she review her record prior to the convening of the promotion board, as uncorrected information could negatively affect promotion opportunity.  To the best of their knowledge, she did not take the opportunity to review her records prior to the board.  A corrected OPR for the period of 19 May 06 through 9 Feb 07, was certified by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) and updated in her record on 6 Aug 07, replacing her previous OPR for the same time period.

The applicant claims her Feb 07 OPR was inaccurate and identical to her previous OPR, which closed out in May 06.  During the normal process of reviewing each eligible’s record prior to the board, the applicant’s record was reviewed and the OPR section of her selection record was found to be complete.  There were no gaps in reporting periods or missing evaluations.  Further review of the OPRs in question, concluded that the Feb 07 OPR was very similar to the previous report; however, several items had been changed.  Block 5, Period of Report, was updated to reflect the recent reporting period; Block 6, No of Days Supervision, reflected an updated number of days of supervision; and the rater’s name, social security number, date, and the signature on the back of the form had been updated.  Further changes include a change in the Job Description, Block 2, Key Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities, and the last line of the Rater’s Overall Assessment.  At the time of the board, her record was complete.  Her top two OPRs were quite similar, however, such similarities do not constitute the Feb 07 OPR, as being inherently wrong or in error.  Obvious changes had been made to the new OPR, ensuring the proper report dates, days of supervision, update of rater, and some other information had been changed, as stated above, indicating the content of the OPR was intentional.  

She states that, Brigadier General XXXXXXXXXX asked if her correct OPR could be given to the board, and if the board could be halted and reconvened with her corrected record; she claims his request was denied.  At the time of the board, the OPR she claims to be incorrect was filed in her OSR.  The procedures for Air Force and participating Reserve and Air National Guard members to correct 
OPRs after they are made a matter of record, is governed by AFI 26-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  Requests to correct evaluation reports are assessed through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) either at the Air Force Personnel Center, for personnel on extended active duty (EAD), or at the ARPC, for Non-EAD personnel.  Section 3 of this AFI outlines instructions for application to the ERAB.  Section 3.3.2 indicates processing for such applications is normally 4-6 weeks, and recommends submitting applications no later than 90 days prior to an upcoming SSB or promotion board.  There is no evidence of a phone call from Brigadier General XXXXXXXXXX during the time of the board; however, his executive officer left a message regarding the applicant’s OPR on the day the board convened to correct the record.  His call was returned and upon the executive officer’s request he was advised to work through the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  DPG is unaware of any contact made by Brigadier General XXXXXXXXXX regarding the applicant’s OPR.  However, had he made a request to an agency, other than the ERAB, to correct the OPR, his request would have been denied in accordance with AFI 36-2401.  Furthermore, had the request been made through the ERAB during the timeframe the applicant indicates, there would not have been sufficient time to process the request for insertion into her record for review by the promotion board, based on the processing time described in this AFI.

It is unlikely, that if discovered during the board proceedings, a determination could have been made the report was in error.  However, if a material error in an OPR is identified during a promotion board, the promotion board cannot take action as it does not have the authority of the ERAB to make or approve corrections to OPRs that are matters of record.  DPG is assured the board proceedings were conducted fairly and correctly.  Furthermore, the Air Force Personnel System allows individuals who feel their records met a promotion board with material errors, recourse through the ERAB and SSB processes.

The complete AF/DPG evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states, in part, the Air Force’s assertion that it is her fault the wrong OPR was in her OSR is unacceptable.  She contends the Air Force is responsible for the error.  Who is responsible for the error is irrelevant and the personnel process should be based on fairness for appeal and correction of records where necessary.  Her senior rater on the erroneous OPR admitted his error in this instance and quickly notified her, offering to submit corrective documents.  He did this on 27 Jul 07, and her record was amended by ARPC, without further question.  At no time did he seek to blame her for his mistake.  The AF/GOMO response to her claim that the OPR was wrong and identical to the previous OPR, makes mockery of her appeal.  The error is obvious to anyone who is not otherwise predisposed to find against her request.  She is not just claiming the OPR is wrong, but she has demonstrated this beyond any doubt.  She reviewed her OPR after it had been made a part of her official record in Mar 07, which was before the board met.  She provided inputs to her rater and noticed the OPR did not appear to contain many of them.  She keyed in on the last line in General XXXXXXXXXX endorsement, which is considered to be the most significant indication of how one is rated, and was pleased with what he wrote.  Although she was somewhat disappointed there was no mention of some of her recent achievements, it did not occur to her that all of the language on the OPR, with the exception of the single line mention, was identical to the OPR written by his predecessor.  Had she taken the time to review the OPR from 2006, and do a line-by-line comparison, she would have noticed the error and contacted General XXXXXXXXXX to rectify the error.  The assertion that she failed to review her record prior to the board is incorrect.  She took action to update her promotion record after she did not receive an Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB).  

An SSB is composed of five or more senior officers, of which, at least one-half will be Reserve officers and at least one officer will be a JAG.  She does not believe she would receive fairness in this process.  The SSB will have just three records to review and at a minimum, every Reserve officer and the JAG will know who the selectee/selectees at the original board were.  Unlike other ranks, the general officer cadre is small and every new promotion list gets a lot of attention.  By failing to accept corporate responsibility, the Air Force has demonstrated a lack of integrity in dealing with this matter.  That attitude will also render a fair SSB impossible.  The effect will be that her career will be truncated, not by a decision fairly based on merit, but as a result of an administrative error.  Only consideration for promotion by the BCMR or in the alternative, an SSB held prior to public release can make her whole.

The applicant’s complete response, 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 concerning the applicant’s request that she receive direct promotion to the grade of brigadier general.  In this respect, we believe that direct promotion should only be considered in extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration has been deemed to be totally unworkable.  We find no such showing here.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice in this matter.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the relief sought in this application.

4.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s contention that her OSR contained errors and her request for promotion consideration by SSB.  We note that SSB consideration prior to the Air Force Reserve General Officer promotion announcement was not possible, due to the board considering the applicant’s case after the public release date of the promotion board.  Further, the Board believes that the proper recourse for the applicant is an SSB.  At the time the applicant was considered for promotion by the CY07 Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board, her record contained an inaccurate OPR, which has since been corrected.  Whether the inaccurate OPR was the cause of her nonselection we are unable to answer.  Nevertheless, we believe that the applicant was deprived of fair and equitable consideration.  Accordingly, in order to resolve any potential injustice to the applicant, the Board believes that any doubt in this matter should be resolved in her favor and that her corrected record should be provided supplemental promotion consideration by the CY07 Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.

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 issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be considered for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2007 Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-03271 in Executive Session on 12 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the record, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Memo, AF/DPG, dated 15 Nov 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 07.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 07, w/atchs.