AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

- 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00860 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) rendered  for  the  period 
27 Mar 92 through 26 Mar 93 be declared void and replaced with a 
reaccomplished report covering the same period. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

I 

The contested OPR does not reflect an accurate assessment of his 
duties,  accomplishments, and  performance  during  the  contested 
period. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided statements from 
the rating chain and documentation relating to his appeal. 

Applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

I 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  appl 
(TAFMSD) 
active du 
rank  (DOR 

icant's  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
is  19 Aug  79.  He  is  currently  serving  on  extended  - 
ty in the grade of major, effective, and with a date of 
)  of 1 Dec 90. 

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1985 follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

24 Aug 85 
14 Apr 86 
20 Feb 87 
20 Feb 88 
1 Nov 88 
1 Nov 89 
20 Jun 90 
2 0   Jun 91 
26 Mar 92 

1(-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

. 

*  26 Mar 93 
26 Mar 94 
26 Mar 95 
26 Dec 9 5  

*  Contested report. 

AFBCMR 97-00860 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

Applicant submitted similar appeals under AFI 36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which were denied by the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board  ( E M )  on 17 Oct 95 and 6 Feb 96, 
respectively. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application and indicated that previous and subsequent OPRs are 
not germane to this case.  As it is accepted that performance and 
potential  can  change  over  time,  evaluation  reports  are 
specifically  designed  to  be  the  rating  chain’s most  accurate ‘ 
assessment  of  a  ratee’s performance  for  a  designated  rating 
period.  Air Force policy is that evaluation reports are accurate 
as  written  when  they  become  a  matter  of  record  and  it  takes 
substantial evidence to the contrary to have reports changed or 
voided.  To effectively challenge OPRs, it  is important to hear 
from all  the  evaluators  from  the reports-not only  for support, 
but  for clarification/explanation.  In this case, the applicant 
provides letters from the evaluators on the contested rebort.  It 
is very important to note, however, that evaluator willingness to 
change a performance report is not, by itself, a valid reason for 
doing so.  To warrant replacement of an OPR, the applicant must 
prove  the  original  report  contained  factual  error  or  was  the 
product  of  injustice  (impropriety) . 
To  be  clear,  replacing 
accurate  information  with  alternative, more  specific, or  more 
eloquent statements is not considered a correction of error.  Any 
evaluation report can be  rewritten to be  more hard-hitting, but 
this is not the purpose of the appeals process. 

DPPPA further indicated that while the applicant and his support 
state  the  revised  reports  contains  more  accurate  information 
describing the applicant’s duties, they do not attempt to explain 
the other additions to the report.  To more  clearly demonstrate 
this point ,  they provide  the  following ex,amples of  unexplained 
additions  to  the  contested  OPR.  DPPPA  does  not  believe  the 
additions to be  an attempt to correct an error, but  rather, an 
attempt  to  rewrite  the  applicant’s  report  for  the  purpose  of 
‘ I .  . .this 
promotion  reconsideration. 
request has no relation to  (applicant’s) selection to Lt Col,” is 
not convincing.  The applicant states this appeal is the result 
of  a  “records review” he  requested  following nonselection  for 
promotion by  the  CY94A  board, which  purportedly  identified the 
contested report as a “weak spot” in his record.  Furthermore, if 

The  rater’s  statement , 

2 

AFBCMR 97-00860 

the rater’s statement was accurate, all requested corrections to 
the  contested  OPR  would  be  concrete,  factual, or  quantifiable 
revisions/additions. 
Statements 
added/revised  in  the  applicant‘s reaccomplished  report  that  do 
not  have  anything  to  do  with  the  proposed  duty  related 
“omissions” and/or “mis-statements“ include : 

This  is  not  the  case. 

‘A  super  star!  Rock  solid  under  pressure . . .  ACC’s number 
one . . .  Best in the branch, top 10% performer overall!  He is ready 
for command  now! . . .  Definitely send to  SSS . . .  Exceptional  officer 
and brilliant leader! . . .  He takes the initiative and gets results! 
Absolutely  a  top  performer! 
Definitely  challenge  with 
operational leadership and send to SSS!” 
The  above  mentioned  changes  to  the  contested  report  are  not 
unique corrections to erroneous information.  While the applicant 
and his support cite specific ”facts” they believe must be added 
to  the  contested  report,  DPPPA  finds  that  in  the  process  of 
adding  the  \\facts” they  have  also  completely  rewritten  large 
portions of  the OPR.  The proposed report does not  resemble the 
original.  By  signing the  original  report, the  evaluators were 
stating, unequivocally, they were satisfied with  the  OPR and in 
no  need  of  further  “exchange  of  normal  rater  to  ratee 
information,” as stated in the rater‘s 17 Dec  96 letter.  DPPPA 
states that there is no regulatory requirement for communication 
between ratees and  their evaluators.  The evaluators signed the 
original report indicating it was accurate, and  then signed the 
letters  (two years later) expressing their desire to revise the 
report. 

~ 

I 

DPPPA further stated that the applicant and his support state HQ 
AFPC’s assessment of his previous appeal is invalid.  They state, 
“(HQ AFPC)  comments  may  apply  in  a  perfect  world  free  from 
operational taskings, interference, and unforeseen circumstances. 
However, second guessing how the contested OPR  should have been 
written and personal criticisms do not change the fact that two 
of applicant’s accomplishments were  inadvertently omitted and so  - 
the  contested  OPR  should  be  corrected  in  accordance  with  Air 
Force  regulations.”  DPPPA  believes  the  inconsistency  between 
this  statement  and  the  requested  changes  is  self-explanatory. 
Nowhere  in  Air  Force  regulations  does  it  state  a  report  is 
invalid because an evaluator “inadvertently forgot” to write  “A 
super star!”  In the rater’s 17 Dec 96 letter  (paragraph 4) ,  he 
states his intention to use  “stronger langupge. 
The contention 
that  a  busy  operational  schedule,  temporary  duty  (TDY) 
assignments,  and/or  geographical  separation,  makes  it  more 
difficult  o r   time-consuming  to  use  “strong  language“  is 
unfounded.  They  find no evidence that  it  took  longer to write 
the  requested  replacement  report  than  it  did  to  write  the 
original. 

I’ 

Furthermore, the applicant’s claim in paragraph 15 of his DD Form 
149 continuation sheet that “AFPC/DPPPA does not fully appreciate 

3 

AFBCMR 97-00860 

familiar  with 

f  my  rating  chain  concerning  this  OPR 
the  position 
appeal . . .  AFPC/DPPPA  is  not 
the  unusual 
circumstances surrounding the  writing  of  the  contested OPR"  is 
without  foundation.  This  appeal  is  not  remotely  confusing  or 
DPPPA's  recommendation  of  denial  in  this  case  is 
unusual. 
directly  supported  by  the  governing  regulation, which  requires 
not only the support of evaluators for revising an OPR, but also 
solid rationale, which  is lacking in  this appeal package.  The 
evaluators claim they were too busy, too far away, unaware of the 
applicant's  accomplishments, and  hampered  in  their  ability  to 
communicate with the applicant.  Again, the specific verbiage of 
the  requested  changes  does  not  correspond  to  the  rationale 
provided  for  them.  DPPPA  strongly  recommends  denial  of  the 
applicant's  request to replace the  2 6   Mar  9 3   OPR.  They do not 
believe  there  is correction necessary to the applicant's  record 
in  relation  to  this  appeal  and  SSB  consideration  is  not 
warranted. 

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

I 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Counsel for the applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and 
stated, in part, that the  issue before  the  Board  is whether an 
injustice  occurred  because  of  the  negligent  omission  of 
significant  facts  relevant  to  applicant's  duties  duking  the 
questioned rating period.  The rater has stated in three letters 
that he was not aware of  all of applicant's achievements at the 
time he wrote the OPR.  The additional rater was also unaware of 
the omitted accomplishments.  The evidence well documents how two 
of  the  applicant's  most  important  accomplishments  during  the 
rating period were omitted and the omission was negligent and the 
remedy for negligence  is to put  the  injured person back  in the 
position he would  have  been had  there been  no negligence.  The 
only way to do this is to replace applicant's contested OPR with 
the corrected OPR. 

Counsel  also  provided  a  five-page  rebuttal  statement  from  the 
applicant. 

Counsel's  complete  response,  with  attachmFnts,  is  attached  at 
Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law o r   regulations. 

4 

AFBCMR 97-00860 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
have  thoroughly  reviewed  the  documentation  submitted with  this 
appeal,  including  the  supporting  statements  from  the  rating 
chain; however, we  are not  persuaded  that  the  contested report 
should  be  declared  void  and  replaced  with  a  reaccomplished 
report.  While the applicant's  contentions are duly noted, we do 
not find these assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by the Air Force.  In regard to the comments 
provided  by  the  rating  chain,  we  have  adopted  the  rationale 
provided by the Air Force in that a report is considered accurate 
as written when it becomes a matter of record.  While the rater 
and additional rater indicate that they did not realize that the 
applicant's accomplishments during the reporting period were not 
completely documented, none  of  the  statements provided  for our 
review is sufficiently persuasive to demonstrate that the report 
in question is flawed or that the assessments of the applicant's 
performance were  erroneous at  the  time  they were  rendered.  In 
addition, we note, and as stated by the Air Force, the rater and ' 
additional  rater  did  not  explain  the  other  additions  to  the 
reaccomplished  report  nor  provide  stronger  rationale  for  the 
reasons they believe the report should be replaced.  Furthermore, 
we note that the reviewer concurred with the rater and additional 
rater's  recommendations to replace the  contested report but  did 
not  indicate he made an error or there was  an oversight on his 
part.  Therefore, should the applicant provide  a statement from 
the reviewer indicating that an error was made, the Bodrd would 
be  willing  to  reconsider  this  application. 
However,  absent 
evidence to the contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the 
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our 
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that 
he  has suffered either an error or an injustice and we  find no 
basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

4.  The documentation provided with this case was  sufficient to  - 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance,  with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have 
materially added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request 
for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

4 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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. 

5 

AFBCMR 97-00860 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 18 September 1997,  under the provisions of 
Air Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27  Dec 96,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 26  Mar 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 9 7 .  
Exhibit E.  Letter fr counsel, dated 12 May 97,  w/atchs. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chairman 

I 

6