DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 93-00325 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the reconimendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552. Title  10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

the Calendar Year 199 1 A (CY9 1 A) Lieutenant  Colonel Board be amended as follows: 

r  records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommenda 

for 

a.  Section IV. Promotion Recommendation:  Delete the last word “Promote” and 

replace with “Definitely Promote.” 

b.  Section IX. Overall Recommendation:  Delete the “X.’ in the “Promote” block and 

place it in the “Definitely Promote.‘ block. 

It is further directed that he be considered  for promotion to the grade oi’lieutenant colonel 
by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY9 1 A  board and, if selected, he also be considered 
for designation to Senior Service School (SSS) by the appropriate SSS Designation Board. Iflie 
is selected for promotion and SSS. the SSB’s recommendations should be forwarded to the Air 
Force Board for Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all 
necessary and appropriate actions may be taken consistent with his retroactive promotion. 

SECONE ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

f i l f  
d G b .   i 
DOCKET NUMBER: 93-00325 

Y 

-i 4998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

RESUME OF CASE: 

On 20 April  1993, the Board  considered and, by  a majority vote, 
denied applicant's request to replace three Officer Effectiveness 
Reports  (OERs) ;  reaccomplish  the  Promotion  Recommendation  Form 
(PRF)  for  the  CY91A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Board;  grant  Special 
Selection  Board  ( S S B )   consideration  for  that  board  and,  if 
promoted,  grant  consideration  for  Senior  Service  School  (SSS) 
selection and reinstatement. In a letter dated  18 December 1995, 
the applicant provided additional evidence, including a statement 
from the senior rater of the PRF, and requested reconsideration. 
HQ  AFPC/'JA  provided  an  advisory  opinion,  which  the  applicant 
rebutted,  contending  in  part  that  the  CY91A  PRF  should- be 
upgraded  to  a  "Definitely  Promote  (DP)" recommendation  and  he 
shouid  be  directly  promoted.  On  18  December  1996  and  14  April 
1997, the  Board  voted  to  replace  the  three  OERs  and  grant  SSB 
consideration  for  the  CY9iA  Board.  However,  the  Board  denied 
applicant's  request  for  an  upgraded  CY91A  PRF  and  a  direct 
promot i o n .  

A copy of the Addendum to Record of 2roceedings (ROP) is attached 
at Exhibit N. 

In  letters  dated  29 April  and  26  May  1997, applicant  requested 
that  the  CY91A  PRF  be  upgraded  to  reflect  an  overall 
recommendation of  "DP. ' I   Included with his  letters are statements 
from the PRF senior rater and the MLEB president. 

Applicant's l e t t e r s   requesting reconsideration, w i t 1 1   attachments, 
are provided at  Exhiblt 0. 

[ I n  a  s u p p l e m e n t a l   s t a t e m e n t ,   the  a p p l i c a n t   a l s o   requests direct 
H i s   contentions r e g a r d i n g   h l s  
promotion  t o   l i e u t e n a n t   c o l o n e l .  
r e q u e s t   f'or  direct promotioil  are c o n t a i n e d   i i i   Exhib.: t  S. 3 

AIR STAFF EVALUATIOK. 

is no  way  t o   determine the validity of  the reaccomplished PRF if 
it  has  yet  to  be  written.  Prior  to  making  a  recommendation in 
this  case  regarding  the  PRF,  the  author  must  see  the 
reaccomplished  report  before  addressing  the  merits  of  the 
applicant's request.  In  the  absence  of  the  revised  report,  it 
would be premature to make a recommendation. However, the author 
does  not  recommend  approval  of  replacing  or  upgrading  the 
contested  PRF  in  the  absence  of  another  review  through  the 
appropriate AFI 36-2603 channels. Based on the evidence provided, 
denial is recommended. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  .Air Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit P .  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant rebutted the evaluation, indicating that neither he nor 
the senior rater had blank  PRF  forms nor the capability to have 
the  forms  retyped  with  the  changes  the  senior  rater  wished  to 
make.  He  was  advised that AFPC  has  the  capability to alter his 
PRF  and  would  accept  a  statement  from his  senior rater stating 
the changes he wishes to make. Consequently, the senior rater has 
provided  a  statement wherein he  indicates that  the  last  comment 
in Section  IV should be  changed  from  ''Promote" to  IIDP" and  that 
the Overall Recommendation in Section IX should be  changed to a 
Furthermore,  the  senior  rater  signed  a  ccrrected  photo 
I ' D P . "  
copy of the original P R F ,   which is provided. The applicant argues 
that since the senior rater is now giving him the one  "DP" he had 
to give, his  record is superior to the record of  the officer to 
.whom  the  senior  rater  originally  gave  the  "DP." Since  this 
officer I  s  IIDP'l  nomination  was  sustained  at  the  MLEB,  and  his 
record is now  the stronger of  the two records, then his current 
nominatior1, had  he  received  it  originally, would  also have 
I f  D P  II 
sustained the  review by  the MLEB. The  significant  correction to 
his  record,  L e . ,  changlng  the  OERs  from  one  txo  three-star 
indorsements, requires approval of  t h i s   request. 
In subsequent responses, applicant further argued that  according 
to Change 1 of AFR  36-10, dated 1 Fe3  90, his senioi- rater is t h e  
final authority in determinirg which of his subordir-iates received 
his  one  'lDP."  In his  latest  statement, dated  21 Y a y   1997, the 
senior  rater  stated  that, had  the  applicant's recsrd  contained 
the OERs currently corrected by  the 9oard, ne would  haire  awarded 
his  one "DP" to the applicant. 
Applicant I s   ccnipletx  ~ e s p o n s ~ ~ ,  
2 : x h i b i t   E .  

wxr, attachments, axis  s ~ - c v i d e c i  at 

In a supplemental statement Ciated  21: February 1998, :he  applicant 
requests  direct  proniotlon  ts  _Lie~"_nant Tolone;. 
He  c c j r i t  end:: 
t-ha! 

th?  oi-igin,_ 

-1: 

-

.

 

article  reported  that  the  promotion  rate at  SSBs has  been  much 
lower than those of central boards. In recent conversations he's 
had with S S B   personnel at AFPC, he was informed that the rate now 
is  actually  only  20%  for  officers  with  a  "DP"  rating. 
Furthermore,  when  he  was  first  considered  for  promotion,  the 
emphasis  for  officers  competing  for  ''DPsI' was  totally  on 
performance.  Whole  person  factors such  as  advanced  degrees  and 
advanced  Professional  Military  Education  (PME) 
were  not 
considered  in  the  PRF  process.  l l D P ~ l l  
were  awarded  solely  as  a 
result of the commander or senior rater's review of the officer's 
prior  performance.  Since  1995, the  process  has  been  changed  by 
the Chief of Staff and as a result of the numerous S S B s   conducted 
for the  illegal PRF  "mini-boards.  Now  S S B   members  meticulously 
scrutinize  records  and  bring  the  broader  Irwhole person"  review 
perspective  into  their  deliberative  processes.  According  to  a 
member  of  the  S S B   office  staff  at  AFPC,  the  S S B   now  carefully 
reviews  all  officer  records  with  'IDP"  recommendations  and 
determines  for  themselves  whether  they,  the  S S B ,   believes  the 
record  before  them  is  of  IrDP"  quality.  Accordiing  to  this 
official,  the  SSB  would  review  his  record  along  with  the 
benchmark  records,  using  current  guidelines,  without  adding 
points  to his  score simply because  he  had  a  I'DP" rating. After 
reviewing his promotion folder, if  the board believed his record 
was  of  a  'IDP"  quality,  then  the  record  would  be  up-scored 
somewhat in recognition of the "DP" rating. Otherwise, the record 
is  considered  just  another 
even  though  it  has  a  9 ? P "  
recommendation. Of  additional  concern  is  the  fact  that  he  will 
loose his  anonymity at  the S S B .   They will  know he's the officer 
seeking  relief  but  they  wili  not  know  the  significant  type  of 
corrections made to the three O E R s   3 r   if the PRF the SSB now has 
was  the  original  one  or  a  corrected  version.  It  was  a  virtual 
certainty that he would have been  selected for promotion in-the- 
zone during  the  CY91A board  with  the  "DP" his  secior rater has 
awarded  him. However,  it  will  be  impossible  for  a  1998  SSB  to 
accurately reconstruct his 1991 central board and prevent presert 
day  biases  from  affecting  their  deliberative  processes. 
Therefore, he  asks that the AFBCMR  act  in his behalf  aEa promote 
him to lieutenant colonel. 

Applicant's complete supplemental statement is at Exhibit S ,  

THE  BOARD  CCNCLUDES THAT: 
S u f  ficierit  xelevanc  evidence  has  been  presentee  zc  aeTanstrate 
existxmce  of probable  errar ox  injustice tc w2:lrant  granzzns 
:ne 
p;I1;T,ld-  Yellef 
documentatlcri  pei-talln1ng  tc  tn:s 
irAclcz:nq  :he  thr-ee 
supporting  statements  from  the  senior  rater,  we  3:-e  persuadec 
that  t h e   applicant  wouid  have  received  the  ser:o:- 
r a t e r ' s   one 

After  thoroughly  reviewing  Z P E  

2 x ~ e n s i ~ ~ e  

I 

appeal , 

"DP ''  had  the reaccomplished O E R s   originally reflected the three- 
star  indorsement  they  now  possess.  Therefore,  we  believe  the 
contested PRF should be upgraded ana amended as indicated below, 
and the applicant given consideration for promotion to the grade 
of lieutenant colonel by S S B   for the CY91A board. We note that in 
his  original  application  the  applicant  also  had  asked  for 
consideration  for  SSS  if  selected  for promotion by  the  SSB and 
this  request  was  granted  by  the  Board  when  the  case  was  re- 
examined  in April  1997. Consequently, we  further  recommend  the 
applicant  be  considered  for  SSS  candidacy  if  selected  for 
promotion by the SSB.  Applicant's appeal for direct promotion by 
the  correction  of  records  process  was  also  noted, as  were  his 
numerous  contentions  concernlng  the  statutory  compliance  of 
central  selection  boards,  the  promotion  recommendation  appeal 
process,  and  the  legality of  the  Special  Selection Board  ( S S B )  
process.  However, absent  clear-cut  evidence  that  he  would  have 
been  a  selectee  had  his  folder  reflected  both  the  previously 
accomplished  and  presently  recommended  amendments,  we  believe 
that  a  duly  constituted  selection  board  applying  the  complete 
promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position to render 
this  vital  determination,  and  that  its  prerogative  to  do  so 
should  only  be  usurped  under  extraordinary  $zircumstances. 
Applicant's dissatisfaction with the officer evaluazion/promotion 
systems  and  S S B   procedures  notwithstanding,  he  has  not 
demonstrated that the processes are illegal or deny him  full and 
equitable  consideration.  Therefore,  his  request  for  dixect 
promotion is denied and we recommend his records be  corrected to 
the extent indicated below. Applicant's request for reinstatement 
has  been  noted;  however,  final  disposition  of  this  issue  must 
await the results of the S S B .  

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Promotion 
Recommendation  Form  f o r   the  Calendar  Year  1991A  (CY91A) 
Lieutenant Colonel Board be amended as follows: 

a.  Section  IV.  Promotion  Recommendation:  Delete  the  last 

word  "Promote"  and replace with  "Definitely Promote. I '  

D .   Section  IX. Overall  Recommendation:  Delete  the  "X" 

in 
the  "Promote"  block  and  place  it  in  the  "Definizely  Promote" 
block. 

It  is further recommended t h a t   he be  considered f o i   promotLon  ic\ 
the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  kiy  a  Special  Selection  B o a i s  
ISSB) for the CY91A board and, if  selected, he a l s c   ke considere6 
for designation to Senior Service School  ( S S S ;  by t r e   approprlEte 
SSS  DesiynatloE Board.  If  he  is  selected f o r   prorncc;on  and  SSS, 
:ne  SSB':; recommendations  s h c ~ l d  be  forwarded  to  - h e  A;i  F O Z L -  

Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  at  the  earliest 
practicable  date  so  that  all  necessary  and  appropriate  actions 
may be taken consistent with his retroactive promotion. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 13 May 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36.- 
2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr, Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. Michael P ,  Higgins, Member 

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

Exhibit N.  Addendum to ROP, dated 15 May 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit 0. Letters, Applicant, dated 29 Apr SC  26 May 97, 
Exhibit P.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 10 Jul 97. 
Exhibit Q.  Letter, AFBCMR, datec 24 Jul 97. 
Exhibit R.  Letters, Applicant, dated 11 Aug 97, 15 &  18 Dec 
Exhibit S.  Letter  (Supplemental Statement), Applicant, dated 
_ -  

20 Feb 98, w/atchs 

w/atchs. 

97, w/atchs. 

"ne1  Chair 

AIR  FORCE  BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECOR 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD O F   PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE  MATTER OF: 

DOCKET  NUMBER: 93-00325 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

RESUME OF CASE: 

In  a  application  dated  12 August  1992, applicant  requested the 
following: 

a.  The  O f f i c e r   Effectiveness  Reports  (OERs)  dosing 
30 April  1986, 3 0   October 1986, and 15 August  1987, be declared 
void  and  replaced  with  reaccomplished  O E R s   containing  an 
indorsement  in  Section VI11  by  the  former commander of  the  9th 
A i r   Force  (9". AF) . 

_ _  

b.  The  s e n i o r   rater  of  the  Promotion Recommendation  Form 
??a:  tQrdar  Year  1991A  (CY9PA) Lieutenant  Colonel. 

t h e  

(PRF)  f o r  
Board  he allpi.;;..i  i  c 

I Pevaluate the PRF. 

c .   He  1 3 9  

rc-~isidered f o r   promotion  to  the  grade  of 
lieutenant  co-i:r~+31 1 7 1 , ~   a  Special  Selection  board  (SSB) for  the 
'  suusequent b o a r d s .  
C Y 9 l A   B o a r d   Z I ~ ( Y  t 1 

d .   If  1 
o f  p 1-omo t 1 a:-l , 
i S S S  

s e l p r t  

. 
: r 

i ,  

lie  be  Given  a  commensurate effective d a t e  
-3.  consideration  for  Senior  Service  School 
i n s t a t e d   tc active duty. 

c o r l i ~ ~ ?  
enct- 

13.  indorsement level of  the contested reports 
-Lrerbai  olrdez-s  handed  down  trom  a  Corona 
reduce  t h e   :nf  lationdry indorsement trends 
flatic?:;  policy was not  implemented by 
1-34 equably  '-3 all o f f i c e r s ;   however, it was 
by  the  9''  AF.  As  a  result, 
unfair! 1' 
ted  I - P ~ O I - ~ S  were 

, 

1 

In  a  letter  dated  18  December  1995,  applicant  requested 
reconsideration, contending that regardless of whether or not the 
indorsement policy was ever Ifformally" issued, it was, in fact, a 
real  and  formal  policy  in the minds  of  those senior commanders 
who,  according  to  Gen  W--,  indorsed  and  supported  its 
development, implementation and enforcement.  New statements from 
senior commanders who  attended  the  Corona  conference where  the 
indorsement policy was discussed, developed and agreed upon make 
it obvious that AFMPC is wrong in their assertion that there was 
no indorsement policy.  The use of quotas to control indorsements 
is illegal and contrary to Air Force regulations and in violation 
of known  statutes.  The  applicant  believes  he  cannot  receive  a 
fair promotion opportunity at an SSB  and therefore requests, upon 
approval  of  this  application, direct promotion  to  the grade  of 
lieutenant colonel. 

Applicant's complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit I. 

A I R   STAFF EVALUATION: 
Pursuant to the AFBCMR staff's request, the Staff Judge Advocate, 
HQ AFPC/JA, provided an evaluation indicating that, because it is 
difficult  10 years after the fact  to  accurately reconstruct- the 
alleged unwritten policies with sufficient certainty, the request 
should  be  time  barred.  If  considered  on  merit,  it  should  be 
denied.  Applicant's  additional  evidence  and  argument  further 
supports  the  Board's  original  findings  and  conclusions.  T h e  
former Air Force Chief of Staff, who presumably presided over the 
[OER indorsement de-escalation] policy, stated in his letter that 
c h e   major  air commanders agreed  to  enforce  the policy, that  the 
commands with  the  largest  officer populations corr.plied with  the 
pclicy,  and  that  only  one  command  had  some  difficulty  for  the 
first year. The evidence clearly shows that  an officer like t h e  
applicant  could  have  received  the  highest  level  indorsement  if 
his  performance truly warranted it and that  "numerous inequities" 
in  application  of  the  policy  did  not  exist.  The  evidence  he 
presents  fails  to  establish  t h a t -  the  policy  yo  de-escalate 
indorsement  levels on O E R s   v i o l a t e d   AFR  36-10, para  3-le, as he 
(contends, or  that  such  a  quota  system  ever  existed.  Rather,  a 
cooperative  agreement  was  reached  by  the  A i r   Force I  s  senior 
--..eiders to  initiate a  policy  to cie-escalate indoi-sements across 
Iie  was  not  treateci  any  differently  than  otlies- 
ili: 
Lr: i: L-s ei ieri t 
Tk e  (_'oron,?  ( 
I :iilorserneri  p t r t : d  

. 

7 .

 

forwarding  the  contested  O E R s   for  the  commander's signature. 
However, we  cannot  determine with  any  certainty whether  or not 
these  reports,  as  originally  rendered,  were  the  cause  of 
applicant's  nonselection  as  he  contends.  Nor  can  we  state 
categorically  that,  with  the  reaccomplished  O E R s   now  in  his 
records,  he  would  or  should  be  promoted.  In  this  regard,  the 
Board  observes  that  officers  compete  for  promotion  under  the 
whole person concept whereby many factors are carefully assessed 
by  selection boards.  An  officer may  be qualified for promotion 
but,  in  the  judgment  of  a  selection  board  vested  with  the 
discretionary  authority  to make  the  selections, may  not  be  the 
best qualified of those available for the limited number he would 
have been a selectee had his  folder contained the reaccomplished 
O E R s ,   we believe that a duly constituted selection board applying 
the  complete  promotion  criteria  is  in  the  most  advantageous 
position  to  render  this  vital  determination,  and  that  its 
prerogative  to do  so should only be  usurped under extraordinary 
circumstances.  Therefore,  applicant's  request  f o r   direct 
promotion was not favorably considered. 

c.  With respect to the PRF reviewed by the CY91A board, the 
applicant  has  not  provided  persuasive  evidence  to  warrant 
reevaluation of  that  document. The  senior rater's statement was 
noted; however, we  are not  convinced that the  PRF  is inaccurate 
or  that  the  recornni5nded  changes  to  applicant's record  justify 
upgrading  the  PRF I  s  ~ v e r ~ i 1 . l  recommendation.  Absent  persuasive 
evidence t o   the contz-as-v 
wt  find no compelling basis upon which 
to recommend ?-.;ant-. 1:" 
2 .   In  view  of  : i t  
we  recommend  applicant's  requests 
regarding  t h e   PRF  ,inc  di:-?(:*  u:-omotion  be  denied, but  that  his 
request  tc  yep1acr  i
xritested  O E R s   with  reaccomplished 
reports  bt  qxzi:ite: 
recommend  :hat 
t h e   applicant  be 
t h e   CY91A selectiort board and, if 
given cons idex-at I 
selected f  71  1'1- 
insiaered fc:  candijacy to SSS. 

: h1:-  ~ 2 -  z c i o n   of the applicanc s request. 

( 7 ~ ~ c ~ L ~ e ,  

i
i ~  
~ 1 . d ~  

'

I

 

._.+ 

"..a'. 

I

.

 

Senior Service School  ( S S S ) .   If  selected for candidacy, then  it 
is also recommended that he be  considered by  SSB  f o r   SSS. If he 
is  selected  for  promotion  and  SSS,  the  SSBsI  recommendations 
should  be  forwarded  to  the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of 
Military  Records  at  the  earliest  practicable  date  SO  that  all 
necessary and appropriate actions may be completed. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on  18 December  1996  and  14 April  1997, under 
the provisions of AFR  31-3: 

Mr. Walter A .   Willson, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Thomas S .   Markiewicz, Member 
Mr. John  L. Robuck, Member 
Ms. D. E. Hankey, Examiner  (without vote) 

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

Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 5 May 93, w/atchs. 
Exhibit I.  Applicant's Letter, dated 18 Dec 95, w/atchs. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 15 A p r   9 6 . .  
Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR,  dated 3 May 96. 
Exhibit L .   Letter, Applicant, dated 3 A u g   96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit M.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 97. 

_ -  

WALTER A. WILLSON 
Panel Chairman 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER O F :  

DOCKET  NUMBER:  9 3 - 0 0 3 2 5  

COUNSEL :  None 

HEARING  DESIRED: 

N o  

0  5 MAY  193 

APPLICANT  REOUESTS  THAT: 

1.  The  O f f i c e r   E f f e c t i v e n e s s   Rep0 
6  O c t o b e r   1985  t h r o u g h   30  A p r i l   1986, 
1986,  and  3 1   October  1986  through  15 
and  r e p l a c e d   w i t h   reaccomplished  OERs 
c o n t a i n i n g   a n   indorsement  i n   S e c t i o n  
o f   t h e   9 t h   A i r   Force. 

r t s   ( O E R s )   f o r .   t h e   p e r i o d s  
1 May  1986  t h r o u g h   30  October 
August  1 9 8 7 ,   b e   d e c l a r e d   v o i d  
c o v e r i n g   t h e   same  p e r i o d s   and 
VI11  by  t h e   former  Commander 

2 .   The  s e n i o r   r a t e r   of t h e   Promotion  Recommendation  Form 
( P R F )  
i s s u e d   f o r   t h e   C a l e n d a r   1 9 9 1 A   (CY91A) L i e u t e n a n t   C o l o n e l   Board  b e  
allowed  t o   r e e v a l u a t e   t h e   PRF. 

3 .   H e   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   f o r   p r o m o t i o n   t o   t h e   g r a d e   o f   l i e u t e n a n t  
c o l o n e l   by  a  S p e c i a l   S e l e c t i o n   Board  (SSB)  f o r   t h e   CY91A  Board  and 
a l l   s u b s e q u e n t   b o a r d s .  

4.  If p r o m o t e d ,   he  b e   g i v e n   a  commensurate  e f f e c t i v e   d a t e   o f  
p r o m o t i o n ,   g r a n t e d   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   f o r   S e n i o r   S e r v i c e   S c h o o l   ( S S S )  
s e l e c t i o n ,   and  r e i n s t a t e d   t o   a c t i v e   d u t y .  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The  c u r r e n t   i n d o r s e m e n t   1 
r e s u l t   o f   v e r b a l   o r d e r s   1 
r e d u c e   t h e   i n f l a t i o n a r y   i 
O E R s   d o   n o t   p o r t r a y   h i s  
p o t e n t i a l   and  t h i s   p l a c e d  
promotion  b o a r d s .  

e v e l s   on  t h e   c o n t e s t e d   r e p o r t s   were 
landed  down  from  a  Corona  c o n f e r e n c e  
ndorsement  t r e n d s   o f   O E R s .   T h e s e   t h  
a c t u a l   h i g h e r   l e v e l   o f   p e r f o r m a n c e  
him  a t   a  d i s a d v a n t a g e   when  c o n s i d e r e d  

t h e  
t o  
. r ee 
and 
by 

T h i s   u n o f f i c i a l   d e f l a t i o n   p o l i c y   was  n o t   i m p l e m e n t e d   b y   a l l  
commands  n o r   a p p l i e d   e q u a b l y   t o   a l l   o f f i c e r s ;   h o w e v e r ,   i t   was 
implemented  and  s t r i c t l y   adhered  t o   by  t h e   9 t h   A i l -   F o r c e .   A s   a 
r e s u l t ,   t h e   i n d o r s e m e n t s   on  t h e   c o n t e s t e d   r e p o r t s   were  u n f a i r l y  
s u p p r e s s e d .   H e   b e l i e v e s   t h e   o f f i c e r s   r e v i e w i n g   I;LS 
p r o m o t i o n  
f o l d e r   observed  a  drop from t h r e e - s t a r   indorsement  ir, prior reports 
t o   t h e   t w o - s t a r   l e v e l   o f   t h e   O E R s   i n   q u e s t i o n   and, w i t h o u t   b e n e f i t  
o f   a n   e x p l a n a t i o n   as  t o   why 
t h i s   d r o p   occurred,  i n c o r r e c t l y  
l o w e r e d   p e z - o r m a r - c e   and 
p e r c e i v e d  
subsequent 1 y 

t h i s   as  t h e   r e s u l t   o f  
t 3 i  ci  not s e i e c k   him  f o r   promotion. 

i 

I n   s u p p o r t   o f   h i s   a p p e a l ,   h e   p r o v i d e s   s t a t e m e n t s   from  t h e   r a t i n g  
c h a i n   members  of  these  OERs.  They  i n d i c a t e   t h a t ,   i n   an  e f f o r t   t o  
comply  w i t h   h i g h e r   h e a d q u a r t e r s   guidance  t o   reduce  i n f l a t i o n a r y   OER 
t r e n d s ,   t h e   9 t h   A i r   F o r c e   implemented,  and  s t r i c t l y   adhered  t o ,   a 
T h a t   i s ,   t h r e e - s t a r  
new  p o l i c y   r e g a r d i n g   i n d o r s e m e n t   l e v e l s .  
i n d o r s e m e n t   was 
l i m i t e d   t o   o f f i c e r s   i n   t h e   p r i m a r y   z o n e   who 
w a r r a n t e d   p r o m o t i o n ,   o f f i c e r s   who  w a r r a n t e d   e a r l y   c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,  
and  o t h e r   o f f i c e r s   under  v e r y   s p e c i a l   c i r c u m s t a n c e s .   They  a l l  s t a t e  
t h a t ,   b u t   f o r   t h i s   p o l i c y ,   a p p l i c a n t   probably  would  have  r e c e i v e d  
t h r e e - s t a r   indorsement  on  t h e   OERs i n   q u e s t i o n .  

The  f o r m e r   9 t h   A i r   F o r c e   commander  a l s o   p r o v i d e s   a  s t a t e m e n t  
w h e r e i n   he  c o n f i r m s   commanders  a t t e n d i n g   Corona  c o n f e r e n c e s   had 
a g r e e d   t o   a t t e m p t   t o   r e d u c e   t h e   growing  number  of  r e p o r t s   b e i n g  
l e v e l  .  I n   s u b s e q u e n t   C o r o n a s ,  
i n d o r s e d   a t   t h e   t h r e e / f o u r - s t a r  
however,  t h e y   found  t h a t   n o t   a l l   commanders  were  complying  w i t h  
t h i s   p o l i c y   and  numerous  i n e q u i t i e s   r e s u l t e d .   Based  on  e v a l u a t o r s '  
comments,  h e   b e l i e v e s   t h e   a p p l i c a n t ' s   r e c o r d   i s   a t   a  d i s a d v a n t a g e  
when  compared  t o   h i s   p e e r s   who  were  a s s i g n e d   t o   commands  which 
v i o l a t e d   t h e   s p i r i t   and  i n t e n t   of  t h e   " d e f l a t i o n "   p o l i c y .  
A p p l i c a n t ' s   complete  submission  i s   provided  a t  E x h i b i t   A .  

STATEMENT  O F   FACTS: 

A p p l i c a n t   s e r v e d   on  e x t e n d e d   a c t i v e   d u t y   f o r   2 0   y e a r s .   H e   was 
m a n d a t o r i l y   r e t i r e d   i n   t h e   g r a d e   of  major  on  1 August  1 9 9 2 ,   u n d e r  
1 0   U.S.C. 8 9 1 1 ,   i n   accordance  w i t h   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   of  1 0   U.S.C. 
6 3 2 .  

_ I  

H e   was  c o n s i d e r e d   b u t   n o t   s e l e c t e d   f o r   promotion  t o   t h e   m a d e   o f  
l i e u t e n a n t   c o l o n e l   by 
and 
CY91B  (convened  2  December  1991) Boards. 

t h e   CY91A  ( c o n v e n e d   1 5   A p r i l   1 9 9 1 )  

T h e   O f f i c e r   P e r s o n n e l   R e c o r d s   Review  Board  d i d   n o t   b e l i e v e  
i n t e r e s t   of  j u s t i c e   would  be  s e r v e d   by  g r a n t i n q   a  w a i v e r   t o  
t h r e e - y e a r   g t a t u t e   o f  
l i m i t a t i o n s   u n d e r   t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   o f  
31-11. 

t h e  
t h e  
AFR 

A  resume  of  a p p l i c a n t   s 

OERs/OPRs s i n c e   1 9 8 4 ,   follows: 

PERIOD CLOSING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

5  O c t  
5  O c t  
* 
30  A p r  
* 
30 Oct 
*  15 Aug 
15 Aug 
15 Aug 
7 J u l  
16 D e c  

4 

0 4  
85 
86 
0 6  
87 
88 
89 
90 
90 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-i 

Meets  Standards 
Meets  S t a n d a r d s  
Meets  S t a n d a r d s  
Meets  S t a n d a r d s  

*  C o n t e s t e d   r e p o r t s .  
#  Top  r e p o r t   reviewed  by  the CY91A and CY91B B o a r d s .  

AIR  STAFF  EVALUATION : 

t h e   c o n t e s t e d   r e p o r t s   u n d e r s t o o d  

T h e   C h i e f ,   Promotion  D i v i s i o n ,   A F M P U D P M A J ,  
reviewed  t h i s   a p p e a l  
and  s t a t e s   t h a t ,   a l t h o u g h   t h e   s u b j e c t   o f   i n f l a t e d   indorsements  was 
b r i e f e d   a t   Corona  c o n f e r e n c e s ,   no q u o t a s   were  e s t a b l i s h e d ,   n o  
w r i t t e n   g u i d a n c e   was  p r o v i d e d ,   and  no  f o r m a l   l i m i t s   o f   any  k i n d  
were  s e t .   A s   evidenced  by  t h e   l e t t e r s   o f   s u p p o r t ,   t h e   e v a l u a t o r s  
t o p   i n d o r s e m e n t s   were 
o f  
a v a i l a b l e   t o   t o p   p e r f o r m e r s .   A p p a r e n t l y   h i s   p e r f o r m a n c e   d i d   n o t  
p l a c e   him  i n   t h e   t h i r d   ( " s p e c i a l   c i r c u m s t a n c e s " )   c a t e g o r y   a s   a n  
o f f i c e r   " d e s e r v i n g   o f   s p e c i a l   r e c o g n i t i o n   f o r   e x c e p t i o n a l  
p e r f o r m a n c e   and  p o t e n t i a l . "   S i n c e   a l l   t h e   s u p p o r t i n g   s t a t e m e n t s  
acknowledge  t h a t   it  was  p o s s i b l e   t o   g e t   a  t h r e e - s t a r   i n d o r s e m e n t  
( i n   f a c t ,   s e v e r a l   o f   t h e   a p p l i c a n t ' s   p e e r s   d i d   r e c e i v e   9 t h   A i r  
F o r c e   commander  indorsement  on  OERs rendered  d u r i n g   1985,  1986,  and 
t h e y   c o n c l u d e   t h e   a p p l i c a n t   had  ample  o p p o r t u n i t y   f o r  
1 9 8 7 ) ,  
t h r e e - s t a r   indorsement  had  t h e   members  o f   h i s   r a t i n g   c h a i n   r e a l l y  
b e l i e v e d   h i s   p e r f o r m a n c e   w a r r a n t e d   s u c h   r e c o g n i t i o n .   T h e r e f o r e ,  
t h e y   recommend  a p p l i c a n t ' s   a p p e a l   be  time- barred  o r ,   i f   c o n s i d e r e d ,  
d e n i e d .  

A  c o m p l e t e   copy  o f   t h e   A i r   S t a f f   e v a l u a t i o n   i s   a t t a c h e d   a t   E x h i b i t  
C .  

_ -  

The  C h i e f ,   R e t i r e m e n t s   Branch,  AFMPWDPMARR,  a l s o   r e v i e w e d   t h i s  
a p p e a l   and  i n d i c a t e s   a p p l i c a n t   was  m a n d a t o r i l y   r e t i r e d   f o l l o w i n g  
two  f a i l u r e s   of  s e l e c t i o n   f o r   promotion  t o  l i e u t e n a n t   colonel u n d e r  
t h e   r u l e s   i n   e f f e c t   a t   t h e   t i m e .   Should  t h e   Board  a p p r o v e   h i s  
r e q u e s t   and  he  i s   promoted  t o   l i e u t e n a n t   c o l o n e l   by  t h e   SSB  and 
r e t u r n e d   t o   a c t i v e   d u t y ,   h i s   mandatory  d a t e   o f   s e p a r a t i o n   would  be 
changed. 

A  c o m p l e t e   copy  of  t h e   A i r   S t a f f   e v a l u a t i o n   i s   a t t a c h e d   t o   E x h i b i t  
D .  
The  C h i e f ,   PME/AFIT A s s i g n m e n t s / S p e c i a l   Fly  P r o g r a m s   B r a n c h ,  
AFMPWDPMRPC,  r e v i e w e d   t h e   c a s e   and  a d v i s e s   t h a t   b e c a u s e   a p p l i c a n t  
was  n o t   s e l e c t e d   f o r   promotion  t o   l i e u t e n a n t   c o l o n e l ,   he  c o u l d   n o t  
b e   c o n s i d e r e d   f o r   SSS.  Should  h e   b e   r e t r o a c t i v e l y   promoted  t o  
l i e u t e n a n t   c o l o n e l   and  r e i n s t a t e d   t o   a c t i v e   d u t y ,   he  should receive 
S S B   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   for SSS. 
A  c o m p l e t e   copy of the Air S t a f f   evaluation  is  a t t a c h e d   to E x h i b i t  
E .  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed  the Air  Staff evaluations a n d   c g i i e s   t h a t   an 
injustice  was  done  to  his  p r o m o t i o f i   r e c o r d   (3s