RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03473 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col), for the period ending 1 Feb 11, be changed. Specifically, Block IV, Rater Overall Assessment, should be changed to read “#2/11 Flt/CCs, my most versatile instr” rather than “#3/7 CGOs & my most versatile Flt/CC.” 2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY11D (5 Dec 11) Major Central Section Board (CSB). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His rater acknowledged the error in a signed memorandum dated 1 Mar 11, 2 weeks after the OPR closed out. Both the additional rater and the reviewer agreed that there was an error in his OPR and that it should be corrected. He submits a new AF Form 707 to replace the original OPR that closed out on 1 Feb 11. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s OPR for the period of 2 Feb 10 thru 1 Feb 11 reflects a stratification statement of “3/7 CGOs & my most versatile Flt/CC—given any task, he always hits the target; ADO now, IDE, & Sq/CC ASAP!” The applicant’s OPR profile of the last 10 reports follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 19 Sep 03 Training Report (TR) 22 Apr 04 Meets Standards (MS) 22 Apr 05 MS 01 Feb 06 MS 01 Feb 07 MS 01 Feb 08 MS 17 Oct 08 TR 01 Feb 09 MS 01 Feb 10 MS *01 Feb 11 MS * Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion by the CY11D Major CSB and Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of removing the applicant’s OPR. Although the applicant provides a re-accomplished substitute OPR, after carefully considering the memorandum provided by the rating chain, the memorandum provides little explanation as to what error occurred and why it needs to be changed, or how this correction would correct any error or injustice in his case. The governing instructions states that the applicant must provide strong evidence to overcome the report’s presumed validity. Additionally, the instructions states that a report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion or may impact future promotions. DPSID reminds the Board to keep the promotion and evaluation issues separate and focus on the report only. Based on the lack of corroborating evidence, they recommend the contested evaluation not be replaced with the substitute report because it could possibly set precedence. This could allow any optional statements that were not originally considered by a promotion board to be added at a later date (when supported by the original evaluators), which may lead airman to request this statement be changed to gain support for supplement promotion consideration. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denying SSB consideration. The reaccomplished OPR provided by the applicant reflects it was digitally signed by the additional rater on 21 May 12, the reviewer on 22 May 12, and the ratee on 22 May 12, which was after the 5 Dec 11 board convening date. Because AFPC/DPSIDEP recommended to deny the applicant’s request to substitute his 1 Feb 11 OPR, they recommend denying SSB consideration. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. He disagrees with the advisories that state he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his 2011 OPR was erroneous or unjust based on the content. Specifically, the stratification comment in Block IV, Line 6, should read “#2/11 Flt/CCs, my most versatile instr” rather than “#3/7 CGOs & my most versatile Flt/CC.” 2. Two days after signing his 2011 OPR, he asked to speak with his rater regarding the stratification comment because it was not what they had discussed in his feedback session. His rater preceeded to tell him that he had made a mistake and that he would fix this mistake. The applicant submits documents that prove the correction to his OPR was initiated before the CY11D Major Promotion board. 3. Contrary to the advisory opinion, he is not trying to get anything “added” to his OPR; he only wants his records to reflect what he has earned; nothing more and nothing less. 4. The fact remains that his rater, additional rater, and reviewer all agreed that there was an administrative error that should be corrected. The applicant’s complete submission, 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. In support of his contention, the applicant provides credible evidence from his rating chain which clearly indicates that his OPR did not accurately portray their assessment of his promotion potential. Given the unequivocal support from the senior rater, we believe that the applicant was improperly disadvantaged due to the error in the stratification statement which resulted in an inaccurate assessment of his performance and potential. Therefore, we recommend approval of the applicant’s request that his OPR be corrected to reflect the correct stratification statement and his record be considered for promotion to the grade of major by an SSB. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 2 February 2010 through 1 February 2011, be amended in Block IV, Rater Overall Assessment, Line 6, to reflect “#2/11 Flt/CCs, my most versatile instr,” rather than “#3/7 CGOs & my most versatile Flt/CC.” It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2011D Major Central Selection Board and any subsequent boards for which the above corrected OPR was a matter of record. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03473 in Executive Session on 16 Apr 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jul 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 27 Sep 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 12. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Nov 12.