RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-02422
		INDEX CODE:  136.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 17 December 2006 through 16 December 2007 be replaced with a reaccomplished report for the period 17 December 2006 through 18 August 2007 and that he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY07B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Because there was not a change of reporting official (CRO), the contested OPR was not in his records when he met the CY07B Lieutenant Colonel CSB.  His leadership failed to capture his job performance from the closeout of the previous OPR to the date of his promotion board (11 months), which would normally be included in his PRF.  As a result, the board did not have an accurate representation of his career and he was not fairly considered for promotion.  By correcting the date on his OPR, he will be able to meet a supplemental board for promotion consideration.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested OPR, a copy of the reaccomplished report, AF IMT 709, Promotion Recommendation, and documentation associated with his Evaluation Reports Appeal board (ERAB) submission.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 2003.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY07B (27 November 2007), Lieutenant Colonel CSB.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the ERAB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial based on AFPC/DPSIDEP's evaluation.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states that although not required, it appears the intent was to CRO the applicant to Major XXXXXXXXXX's rater, Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX, when Major XXXXXXXXXX deployed; however, since the applicant's annual report was due in December 2006, and coincided with Major XXXXXXXXXX's departure, the annual report was accomplished closing out 16 December 2006 as scheduled.  Unfortunately for the applicant however, although the intent was there, it appears the CRO was never updated in MILPDS.

Although Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX states that a CRO should have taken place in August 2007, MILPDS shows there was no action until 2 September 2007 at which time the applicant was CRO'd to Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX.  Since the December 2007 CRO did not take place, a CRO would have generated requiring Major XXXXXXXXXX to do a CRO report; however, due to his deployment those days would have been deducted from the number of days supervision, which would have been less than 120 days, thereby voiding the requirement for the CRO OPR.  The next report would have continued to be projected as an annual report.  However, since Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX would not have had 120 days supervision, it would have closed out on 30 December 2007, at the 120 day point, versus closing out on the original 16 December 2007 date.

However, since no one took any action in August or September to do a CRO report and waited until 16 December 2007 and accomplished the annual with Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX as the rater, presumably because he had the most supervision, it appears the report was prepared as intended.  Unfortunately for the applicant however, a December 2007 close-out date made the report ineligible for the promotion board.

Technically, since no CRO was required to begin with, the 16 December 2007 annual report should have been accomplished by Major XXXXXXXXXX.  However, since a CRO was accomplished on 2 September 2007 and Major XXXXXXXXXX's deployment would have voided his requirement to do a CRO, an annual report for 120 days supervision should have been prepared closing out on 30 December 2007 by Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX.

Unfortunately for the applicant, other than the inaccurate updates in MILPDS, there is no other evidence that Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX was ever the rater, or what role he played in the evaluation process.

It is evident that the applicant is not motivated by purported injustices in his OPRs, but by the fact that his OPR did not meet the promotion board which he believes was the reason for his promotion nonselection.  The purpose of the appeals process is not to improve the applicant's promotion potential, but to correct errors or injustices.  DPSIDEP did not find either in this case.  Regardless of all the MILPDS inconsistencies, it appears that the report was originally prepared as intended; and it was not until the report was ineligible for the board that the CRO issue was raised.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states because this CRO did not happen; his records that met the board were incomplete.  There was nothing to show the board what he had done for the past year, which meant that he could not be fairly considered for promotion.  The work he did in the 11 months prior to the board was significant, and he strongly believes it would have made a difference to the promotion board.  Most notably, his group and wing commanders selected him as the Test Aircrew of the Year for the very work he did in that time frame.

There were numerous inconsistencies with MILPDS highlighted in the advisory.  Among these, he does not know why MILPDS showed Lieutenant Colonel XXXXXXXXXX as his rater on 2 September 2007.  Part of the problem may be that his squadron had a new administrative assistant during this time period, and he was not "standing over her shoulder" to fix some of these errors, since she was two time zones away from him.  He should have been more diligent in correcting these MILPDS errors in his record, but during this time frame he was on a temporary duty (TDY) for 85 days.  He was extremely busy since he was both the only HH-60G test pilot in the Air Force during that time and was running the detachment for over six months as the acting commander.

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 an error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that relief is not warranted in this case.  The applicant's contentions and the comments provided by his rating chain are duly noted; however, we agree with the Air Force offices of primary responsibility that notwithstanding the rating chain's willingness to reaccomplish the report, persuasive evidence has not been provided showing that the original report, as written, was erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2008-02422 in Executive Session on 18 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 June 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 8 September 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 9 September 2008
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 September 2008.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 October 2008, w/atchs.

			
			Panel Chair