RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01156 INDEX CODE:	111.00, 131.00

COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period of 1 Sep 02 through 31 Aug 03 be removed from her records.

2.	The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered on her and viewed by the CY03A (5 May 03) major central selection board (CSB) be reaccomplished.

3.	She receive consideration for promotion to major by special selection Board (SSB) for the CY03A major CSB with the changed PRF and SSB consideration by all the CSBs for which her 31 Aug 03 OPR was considered.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her referral OPR was an overreaction to events and unduly prejudicial. The report was referred not solely on the basis of the additional rater’s assessment of her performance, but upon pressure received from general officers. This constitutes undue command influence. Her rater, who was present during the entire rating period, chose not to refer the report. The additional rater on the OPR had not been present during the events in question and was not involved in the deliberations and conversations on the topic. Further he refused to discuss the incident with her. He only had what was passed on to him by his predecessor. The decision to refer the report was made contrary to Air Force policy. The rating chain violated AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, which states “do not sign blank form or forms not containing ratings.” The new OPR form was specifically designed to preclude it. Her OPR states that she disobeyed an order; which is substantively vague and is without context. The reader is forced to wonder and draw their own conclusions as to the severity of the incident. Given this was the only derogatory information in her officer selection record, it is reasonable that this document – and indeed this comment alone – caused her non-selection.

Her PRF should be changed to reflect in Line #9 “Superior leader, warrior & mentor, ready for greater challenges – ISS in residence, definitely promote!” She also requests that the overall recommendation be changed from “Do Not Promote” to “Promote.” The term “admin punishment” on her PRF leads reasonable readers to

believe she received non-judicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The statement is materially incorrect and unfairly prejudicial. The promotion board was provided information that was factually untrue and vague enough for them to read in the worst possible interpretation of her supposed actions.

She did not use the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) because she did not know about it until a few weeks ago. In 2003, her squadron was geographically separated and there was no Military Personnel Flight (MPF) staff nearby to advise her on the ERAB and the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) did not mention it either.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, an email message, Officer Selection Briefs and PRFs for boards CY03A, CY03B, CY04A, CY05B, and CY06B, and copies of two versions of the OPR closing out 31 Aug 03, w/ referral documents.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain. Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 30 Sep 94. The applicant has six nonselections to the grade of major by the CY03A, CY03B, CY04A, CY05B, CY06B, and CY07A Major CSBs. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and can be found at Exhibits B and C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of applicant’s request to remove her 31 Aug 03 OPR, and to reaccomplish her PRF rendered for the CY03A promotion board. The OPR and the PRF are in compliance with governing directives and no errors or injustices were found to exist. DPSIDEP states the application was forwarded to the ERAB who in turn reviewed the applicant’s request; and based on the information provided, would normally return the application because it lacked required documentation. Unfortunately, however, even with a reaccomplished PRF and the required senior rater/management level review (MLR) president’s supporting documentation, the ERAB would still recommend denial, because there is no error or injustice in the contested reports.

DPSIDEP points out that the applicant submitted two versions of the contested OPR. The first version, in which the additional rater non-concurred and was unsigned by the reviewer is referred to as a DRAFT, since this version never became a matter of record. The second version, although still a referral, the additional

rater did concur, the reviewer signed and it was made a matter of record; this version will be referred to as the OFFICIAL version.

a.	Regarding the contested OPR. Governing directives do prohibit the use of signed blank forms; and although the applicant submitted an email that alludes to a possibility that signed blank forms were used; this email is referring to the DRAFT version of the OPR. There is no confirmation that the OFFICIAL version of the OPR did not contain an original signature. In fact, the DRAFT version the email refers to, and the additional rater non- concurred on, was never made a matter of record. In the email provided by the applicant it shows that no changes were made to the rater’s block and the applicant provided nothing from the rater to confirm that it was not an originally signed report; or that he did not concur with any changes after the  fact. Therefore, DPSIDEP finds this alleged discrepancy unsubstantiated.

b.	The statement the applicant contends is vague is in compliance with the AFI and is direct: she received a LOR, UIF, and CR for disobeying an order; that is all that is required.

c.	Regarding what the applicant believes was undue influence used in the downgrade of the contested OPR, she must submit a statement from her evaluators to back this as there are procedures in place for disagreements. The evidence shows these procedures were taken, and when the evaluators disagreed, they discussed the matter and came to an agreement on the issue and reaccomplished the report. The email provided refers to the DRAFT version of the report, and is a discussion between the rater and additional rater as to a disagreement. It was to be a referral and the only change was to markdown the front to be commensurate with the referral comment in the Additional Rater’s remarks. As it appears that the alleged “undue influence” only applied to the DRAFT version, this allegation is without merit.

d.	There is no minimum number of days of supervision required by the additional rater. In fact, it appears this additional rater was back briefed by the losing additional rater which although encouraged, rarely happens.

Regarding the contested PRF, the applicant is contesting the statement “Capt D’s lapses in AF Core Values led to admin punishment – not recommended for promotion.” She believes that the statement is prejudicially vague and that the term “admin punishment” on its face leads reasonable readers to believe she received non-judicial punishment under Article 15. The contested statement is acceptable as written. Although, “lapse in AF core values” could have been explained clearer, it is acceptable, though borderline. On the other hand the term “admin punishment” refers to Letters of Reprimand (LOR), Letters of Counseling (LOC), Unfavorable Information Files (UIF), and Control Roster (CR) actions; while nonjudicial punishment refers to Article 15. In this case the applicant received a LOR, UIF, and CR and to use the term admin action is appropriate under the circumstances. In addition to the PRF, all OPRs are reviewed including the contested one, which specifically states each of the admin punishments she

received. There was no doubt in the minds of the promotion board members as to whether or not she received an Article 15 or an LOR; the facts were available to the Board.

Regarding her request to change line 9 of her PRF to read, “Superior leader, warrior & mentor, ready for greater challenges – ISS in residence, definitely promote!” and the overall promotion statement from “Do Not Promote” to “Promote.”, we find she has provided no support to substantiate the requested changes nor did she provide any documentation that she addressed her concerns with her senior rater, the head of the MLR, or the promotion board.

In conclusion, the applicant must provide a substitute report when requesting changes to a PRF. Additionally, she must submit the concurrence and a statement of justification for the changes in the PRF from both the senior rater and MLR president. Her request to void the contested DRAFT version of the report is without merit, as the DRAFT version of the report is not in her record. Furthermore, a report is not inaccurate or unjust because the applicant believes it led to her non-selection for promotion or may impact future promotions. Although not necessary because it is acceptable as written, the Board can deny voiding the OPR, and only with the additional rater’s concurrence, Change Line 9 of the PRF from “Capt D’s lapses in AF Core Values led to admin punishment – not recommended for promotion”, to “Disobeyed a written order – received an LOR, UIF and placed on CR – not recommended for promotion.”

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
HQ AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of applicant’s request for SSB consideration. The reports are in compliance with governing directives and no errors or injustices exist.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In response to the evaluations prepared for her application, the applicant disagrees with DPSIDEP’s opinion that the undue command influence applied only to the DRAFT version of her OPR. This seems counterintuitive. Command influence would certainly not have been evident during the final coordination of the OPR as it would not need to be exerted again if it had had the desired effect while the draft was being coordinated.   The email of
23 Oct 03 makes clear that the reviewer and additional rater received direction from senior officers at USAFE to refer the report.

It was never her contention that the command influence was successful in getting the rater to change his rating, but it is clear the additional rater and reviewer were influenced.

The contention that she must submit a statement from her evaluators does not make sense since very few individuals would admit to knowingly violating Air Force policy.

If undue influence came into play during any part of the process— and even the advisory admits that it did—the entire process is tainted and should by itself render the report void in its entirety.

The advisory contends, “the term ‘admin punishment’ refers to LORs, LOCs, UIF, and CR actions; while non-judicial punishment refers to Article 15 action.” While all of these actions are clearly administrative in nature, they are “not” punishment. These items are corrective measures and are commonly briefed as such to commanders, first sergeants, and individual Airmen. To now contend they are punishments conflicts with Air Force policy.

The PRF in question was prepared for the CY03A Major Selection Board which convened in May 03. The OPR to which the advisory refers did not close out until Aug 03, three months after the board convened. It is therefore impossible that this OPR was available to the board. As previously stated, this was the only derogatory information in her officer selection record, and it is reasonable that the PRF—and indeed the comment alone within the PRF—caused her non-selection.

The advisory’s recommendation to change the PRF to say “Disobeyed a written order—received an LOR, UIF, and placed on a CR—not recommended for promotion” would be an unjust resolution.

The cumulative errors and violations of Air Force policy and fundamental fairness in this case are egregious and unduly prejudicial. The chain of command was unduly influenced to put derogatory comments within the OPR. Without such influence, it is entirely possible such comments would never have entered her record of performance, or even probable given the rater declined to refer the report. Merely changing the PRF does not remedy the underlying problems with this case.

Applicant's complete response is at 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as  the basis for our conclusion that the
1.	
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 Docket Number BC-2008-01156 in Executive Session on 9 September 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-01156 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 25 Mar 08, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 May 08. Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 19 May 08.
Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jun 08. Exhibit E.	Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 08.