. 

b 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

ADDENDUM 

TO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  94-01878 - 

RESUME OF CASE: 

On  18  October  1994,  the  Board  considered  an  application  from 
subject applicant.  Applicant requested that the comments of the 
additional  rater,  in  Section VI1  of  the  Officer  Effectiveness 
Reports  (OERs) for the periods closing 15 June 1987 and 15 June 
1988, be  deleted.  Applicant  also  requested  that  he  receive 
consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by 
special selection board  (SSB) for the Calendar Year  (CY) 199OA, 
1991A, 1992A and 1993A Medical/Dental Lieutenant Colonel Boards. 
The Board, after reviewing the evidence of record and applicant's 
submission, concluded that  the application was not  filed within 
three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, 
as  required by  Section 1552, Title  10, USC  and AFR  31-3.  The 
Board  found  no  basis  to  excuse  the  untimely  filing  of  the 
application and denied the application as untimely on 9 December 
1994. 
A  copy  of  the  Record  of  Proceedings, with  attachments, dated 
9 December 1994, is attached at Exhibit F. 

Applicant has submitted an application, dated 23 September 1997, 
requesting reconsideration of  his earlier request to delete the 
additional  rater's  comments  from  the  OERs,  for  the  periods 
closing  15 June  1987  and  15 June  1988;  and,  that  he  receive 
consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by 
SSB for the CY90A Medical/Dental Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  believes  the  OERs  in  question  were  downgraded  by  his 
additional rater due to a personality conflict, bias, favoritism, 
the additional rater's management style, and a misrepresentation 
of  his  (applicant's) job performance.  This downgrading becomes 
obvious when  comparing the  additional rater's comments with  t h e  
rater's comments, as well as the previous and  following OERs  in 
his personnel record. 

In support of  his appeal, applicant submits statements from the 
raters  of  the  OERs  in  question,  dated  July  1992, which  were 
reviewed  in applicant's original  application.  He  also  submits 
numerous letters from other individuals, copies of OERS/OPRS and 
additional documentation. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit G. 

G 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  is  currently  serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the 
grade of ma j or. 

The Officer  Personnel Records Review Board  (OPRRB) declined  on' 
2 March 1994 to consider the applicant's similar appeal under AFR 
31-11.  The applicant's request was further denied by the AFBCMR 
in October 1994. 

Applicant  has  seven  promotion  non-selections  to  the  grade  of 
lieutenant colonel by the CY90, CY91, CY92, CY93, CY94, CY95 and 
CY96 Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. 

Applicant's OER/OPR profile is as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 
*  15 Jun a7 
*  15 Jun a8 
15 Nov 88 
13 May a9 
#  13 May 90 
30 Nov 90 
# #   30 Nov 91 
###  30 Nov 92 
####  20 Jun 93 
1 Mar 94 
##### 
1 Mar 95 
###### 
1 Mar 96 
#######  10 Jul 96 
10 Jul 97 

*  Contested reports 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

1-1-1 
1-1-x 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

# 

# #  

# # #  

# # # #  

Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY9OA Medical/Dental Board. 
Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY91A Board. 
Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY92A Board. 
Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY93A Board. 

##### 

###### 

####### 

Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY94 Board. 
Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY95 Board. 
Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by CY96 Board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPPP,  states that 
they stand by their original advisory written 31 May  1994.  The 
contested OERs have been a matter of record for over nine years. 
Clearly,  the  alleged  error ( s )   upon  which  applicant  relies 
has/have  been  discoverable  since  publication  of  the  OERs  in 
question.  Applicant has provided nothing to convince AFPC/DPPPP 
that the errors were not discoverable until January 1990, nor has 
he offered a concrete explanation for filing late. 

Applicant  has  not  provided  new  information  to  further 
substantiate his claim a personality conflict existed between he 
and  the  indorser of  the  OER.  The  statements from  outside the 
rating chain are not germane to this case.  While the individuals 
are entitled  to  their opinions of  the  applicant, AFPC/DPPPP  is 
provided no reason to believe  they were in a better position to 
assess  the  applicant's  duty  performance  during  the  contested 
rating  period  than  those  specifically  charged  with  his 
evaluation.  In the absence of  supportive information from  the 
evaluators, official  substantiation of  error  or  injustice  from 
the Inspector General  (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but 
not provided  in this case.  The applicant attempted  to procure 
copies of t w o   alleged social action investigations.  However, his 
attempts to procure them were unfruitful as he waited over five 
years to request them from the appropriate agencies.  It appears 
the contested reports were accomplished in direct accordance with 
Air Force policy in effect at the times they were rendered. 

Applicant  contends  the  contested  OERs  are  inconsistent  with 
previous performance.  It is not  feasible to compare one report 
covering a certain period of time with another report covering a 
different  period  of  time.  The  OPR  was  designed  to  provide  a 
rating  for  a  specific period  of  time  based  on  the  performance 
noted  during  that  period,  not  based  on  previous  performance. 
They recommend applicant's request be denied. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant  states,  in  summary,  that  his  raters  both  gave  him 
copies of his OERs with their comments.  However, the additional 

rater's comment section was blank but he  (applicant) assumed the 
additional rater's comments would mimic the positive attitude of 
the raters.  After  consulting with past promotion board members 
and  completing an OER/OPR  writing  course, he  realized that  the 
additional rater's comments carry the heaviest weight in an OPR. 

Applicant  further states that he  takes  issue of  the meuion of 
his  non-selections  for  lieutenant  colonel. 
He  feels  this 
influences the  review board's opinion on  his  re-appeal and  is 
rather derogatory towards his career, his character and himself. 
Also, unless a Definitely Promote  (DP) is awarded, the chances of 
promotion are minimal to non-existent. 

The assessment of the quality of his job performance is provided 
in the supporting letters.  The lack of any negative findings or 
trends by the Dental Quality Assurance Committee and peer reviews 
further proves that his professional performance met  or exceeded 
all  standards.  The Air  Force policy  of  non-tolerance  towards 
harassment  and  discrimination  on  the  job  is  the  regulation 
governing this re-appeal. 

A copy of the applicant's response, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit J. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The Board originally determined that applicant's record did 
not raise issues of error or injustice which required resolution 
on the merits of the case.  Therefore, the Board concluded that 
it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse applicant's 
failure  to  file  in  a  timely  manner. 
Based  upon  the  recent 
documentation,  we  believe  it  is  prudent  to  resolve  the 
applicant's case on its merits. 

2.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  additional  rater's 
comments should be deleted from the OERs, for the periods closing 
15 June 1987 and 15 June 1988, and that he receive consideration 
for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  special 
selection  board  (SSB)  for  the  CY9OA  Medical/Dental  Lieutenant 
Colonel Board.  His contentions are duly noted; however, we  do 
not  find  these  assertions, in  and  by  themselves, sufficiently 
persuasive  to override the rationale provided by  the Air  Force. 
We note the statements submitted by the raters of the two OERs in 
question.  Although they both stated that they believe applicant 
deserves promotion, neither of  the raters indicated there was a 
personality conflict, bias or favoritism against the applicant as 
he  alleges.  We  also  noted  the  statement  submitted  from  the 
indorser of  the  15 June 1987 OER.  The  indorser stated that  he 
did not  get  to know the additional rater very well  and  he  felt 

4 

that  the  indorser  was  more  dictatorial  than  he  needed  to  be. 
However, he did not indicate that the additional rater was biased 
or that there was a personality conflict between the additional 
rater and the applicant.  Applicant submits numerous letters from 
other individuals who had an opinion of the additional rater of 
the  OERs  in question;  however,  these  individuals were  not  the 
individuals charged to assess applicant's performance during the 
contested  rating  period. 
We  therefore  agree  w i n   the 
recommendations  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.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

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. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 14 April  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 .  

Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 

, 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit F.  ROP, dated 9 Dec 94, w/atch. 
Exhibit G.  DD Fm 149, dated 23  Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 6 Nov 97. 
Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 4   Nov 97. 
Exhibit J.  Applicant's Letter, dated 17 Dec 97. 

BENEDTCT A. i(AUSAL  IV 
Panel Chair