RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01257
		INDEX CODE:  111.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 15 April 2002 to 14 April 2003 be replaced with a reaccomplished report.

2.  He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 2003 (CY03) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to an administrative error, his duties as commander were omitted from his OPR.  His OPR does not document significant combat related responsibilities and experiences as a commander during the rating period.  This exclusion was unintentional by his rater and was caused by an administrative oversight by the rater’s staff.  His rater violated AFI 36-2406, Correcting Officers and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, by providing blank, pre-signed OPRs for home station use.  This oversight may have impacted his consideration for promotion and masked important facts impacting assignments and professional development opportunities.  His rater and additional rater signed a new OPR.  He submitted a request to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) but it was denied.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, copies of memorandums, AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports with attachments; summary of changes, copies of award citations and a Single Unit Retrieval Format (SURF).

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 March 1999. 

The applicant has five nonselections to the grade of colonel by the CY03B, CY04A, CY05A, CY06A and CY07A CSBs which convened on 27 October 2003, 6 December 2004, 12 September 2005, 15 May 2006, and 9 April 2007 respectively.

His total active federal commissioned service date (TAFCSD) is 4 August 1982.

He filed a similar request through the ERAB and his request was denied on 7 May 2004.  The ERAB was not convinced that the report was unjust or wrong.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request to replace the contested OPR.  DPSIDEP states it has become increasingly common to find evaluators who are willing to reaccomplish reports on former subordinates long after the closeout date.  DPSIDEP opines that despite experiencing a high deployment tempo during this period, the opportunity to send a letter before the promotion board was available.  The appeal process does not exist to enhance an applicant's promotion potential and this appeal appears to be exactly that.  The information he is requesting to be added in the evaluation was known and available to the evaluators at the time the report was written, the information is not mandatory for inclusion in the evaluation, and most importantly, through due diligence and by maintaining reasonably careful records, he should have discovered and taken steps to correct the omissions prior to the promotion board, not five years after the fact.  Furthermore, the report in his records makes reference to his being a deployed commander.  The requested changes only relate the information more eloquently and with stronger phrases.  DPSIDEP is not convinced the contested evaluation is erroneous or unjust.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of his request for SSB consideration.  DPSOO states their evaluation of this request requires them to rely on the opinions of other Air Force experts.  As such, DPSOO has reviewed DPSIDEP’s advisory and based on their recommendation to deny his request to substitute the OPR, they recommend denial of his request for SSB consideration. 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating there were critical flaws with the DPSIDEP analysis.  The assertion that the original OPR makes reference to his being a deployed commander is incorrect.  The advisory states he had the opportunity to review and correct his evaluation prior to the promotion board, this is unreasonable and overlooks the nature of the administrative errors regarding the OPR.  It also states his rater knew about his deployed commander experience and was not required to comment on it.  This is misleading and the OPR draft his rater reviewed was not the version that actually received his signature.  To say his request is merely to enhance his promotion potential and should be denied because there was no error or injustice overlooks the facts of this request.

His complete response is attached 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 an error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report was prepared in violation of the governing Air Force Instructions.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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-2008-01257 in Executive Session on 24 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 March 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 6 May 2008.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 19 May 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 June 2008.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 July 2008.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair