DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AF’BCMR 96-02325 

MAY 0 4 1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation 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: 

tary records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation 
for consideration by the Calendar Year 1995A Colonel Chaplain Board, 

convened on 15 Mar 95, be amended in Section VI, Group Size, to read “6” rather than 

“1 .” 

It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a 

Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1995A Colonel Chaplain Board, which convened 
on 15 Mar 95, with the corrected PRF. 

c/  Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-02325 

COUNSEL:  GARY R. MYERS 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES  MAY  0 4 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be  directly promoted  to the grade of colonel with  a  date  of 
rank  (DOR) which the Board determines to be proper. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  was  denied  promotion  because  of  biased  Officer  Performance 
Reports  ( O P R s )   which were part  of his record.  These OPRs,  four 
in number, were  expunged  from his  record.  A  Special Selection 
Board  (SSB) was  convened and he was again nonselected.  At  this 
SSB his  record was devoid of the four OPRs, but  this meant  that 
much  of his career as a  lieutenant colonel was not available to 
the SSB. 
He was wrongfully accused of child molestation while stationed at 
MacDill AFB in 1983.  He was totally exonerated of these charges. 
Nonetheless, these false charges formed the basis for a continued 
series of negative events that served to undermine his career. 

He  believes  that  another  SSB  is  not  the  solution.  A  clear 
injustice  has  been  done. 
The  removal  of  four  O P R s   is 
insurmountable, not to mention the loss of opportunity that was 
caused by his persecution.  The only meaningful solution is for 
the Board to directly promote him. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  three-page 
counsel's  brief,  and  his  AFR  31-11  and  AFI  36-2401  appeal 
applications and supporting documentation. 
Applicant's  complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty 
in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that 
grade  on  1  Jun  90.  His  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service 
Date  (TAFMSD) was 22 Jun 77. 

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1986 follows: 

PERIOD  ENDING 
5 Mar 86  (Maj) 
5 Mar 87 
5 Mar 88 
4  Feb 89 
4 Feb 90 
3 Oct 90  (Lt Col) 
1 J u l   91 
1 J u l   92 
7 Jun 93 
15 Apr 94 
15 Apr 95 
15 Apr 96 

# 

EVALUATION 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
Meets Standards 

Removed by Order of Chief of Staff 
Removed by Order of Chief of Staff 
Removed by Order of Chief of Staff 
Removed by Order of Chief of Staff 

Meet Standards 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

# #  
#  Top Report -  CY95A  (15 Mar 95) Colonel Chaplain Board. 
# #   Top  Report -  CY96A  (8 Jul 96) Colonel Chaplain Board. 
As a result of decisions by the Officer Personnel Records Review 
Board  (OPRRB) to remove the applicant's  OPRs closing 4 Feb 90 and 
3 Oct 90, and the Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB) to remove 
his  OPRs  closing  1 Jul  92 and  7  Jun  93 and  replace his  P0695A 
Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF),  on  31  Jul  95,  he  was 
considered by an SSB for promotion to the grade of colonel by the 
CY95A  Central  Colonel  Chaplain  Board,  which  convened  on 
15 Mar 95.  He was not selected for promotion by the SSB. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application 
and  recommended  denial. 
According  to  DPPPA,  it  must  be 
understood that the remedy used by the Air Force when a record is 
corrected is SSB consideration.  Regardless of the circumstances, 
the applicant received the  same reconsideration received by  all 
officers  who 
have  had  significant,  or  in  some  cases 
insignificant,  changes made  to  their  record  through  the  appeal 
process.  It is not within  their discretion to recommend direct 
promotion of Air Force officers, as they use the board process to 
consider  all  officers  for  promotion  in  the  same  manner.  The 
applicant  has  successfully  appealed  the  O P R s   believed  to  be 
prejudicial,  had  them  removed,  and  replaced  his  P0695A  PRF. 
DPPPA's  response to  record  correction of  that  degree  is  always 
SSB consideration.  In that the applicant has received the same 
treatment  as  all  other  officers  who  have  had  reports  removed, 
DPPPA believes he  has  been  treated  in a  manner  consistent with 
the governing regulation.  For this reason, they do n o t   recommend 
direct promotion. 

DPPPA pointed  out  that  the applicant received SSB consideration 
with a corrected  (upgraded) PRF reflecting a "Definitely Promote" 
(DP) with a group size of 'T' in Block VI.  The policy governing 
the changing of the group size on a PRF to "1"  when it has been 
upgraded from a "Promote" to a DP has changed, mandating that the 
group  size  remain  the  same  as  was  indicated  on  the  original 
report.  Should the AFBCMR  determine  that  SSB  consideration  is 
equitable for the applicant, DPPPA indicated that they would not 
recommend against awarding the  applicant SSB  consideration with 
the  P0695A  PRF  reflecting  a  group  size  of  "6,"  as  was  on  the 
original report. 

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of the Air  Force  evaluation were  forwarded to  applicant 
and counsel on 23 Sep 96 and 11 Nov  97 for review and response. 
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been  received by  this  office 
(Exhibit D) . 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We note that when 
the  applicant  was  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
colonel  by  an  SSB,  the  group  size  on  his  reaccomplished  PRF 
prepared  for  consideration by  the  CY96A  Colonel  Chaplain  Board 
was  changed  from a  "6"  to  a  "1." 
Since  the  group  size  should 
have remained the same as the group size on the P R F   considered by 
the  original  board,  we  recommend  that  the  P R F   be  amended  to 
reflect  a  group  size  of  " 6 . "  
We  further  recommend  that  the 
applicant  be  provided  appropriate  SSB  consideration  with  his 
corrected record. 
4. Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
regarding the applicant's  request for direct promotion.  The use 
of selection boards to select officers for promotion is a highly 
sensitive and discretionary function and their actions cannot be 
presumed. 
In  the  selection  process,  officers  compete  for 
promotion  under  the whole  person  concept whereby  O P R s   and  PRFs 
are  but  one  of many  factors  assessed  by  selection boards.  An 
officer  may  be  qualified  but,  in  the  judgment  of  a  duly 
constituted selection board, vested with discretionary authority 

3 

AFBCMR  9 6 - 0 2 3 2 5  

to score his or her record, may not  receive a high enough score 
to warrant selection for promotion simply because of the limited 
number  of  promotion  vacancies.  We  believe  that,  in  order  to 
justify a Secretarial promotion, there must be evidence that the 
officer  has  suffered  an  error  or  an  injustice  and  persuasive 
evidence that the officer's  record cannot be fairly considered by 
a  duly  constituted  selection  board. 
We  have  found  that  the 
former condition has been  fulfilled but  not  the  latter.  It  is 
true  that,  when  he  was  first  considered  for  promotion  to 
lieutenant colonel,  four O P R s   had  been  removed  from the  record 
and  of  the  four  O P R s ,   three  were  among  the  five  reports  he 
received  as  a  lieutenant  colonel.  The  applicant's  situation, 
while  unfortunate,  in and  of  itself, does not  warrant  a  direct 
promotion by this Board.  We believe it must be noted that based 
on  the  limited  number  of  promotion  vacancies  available  for 
chaplains to colonel, the selection process is highly competitive 
and there is no guarantee the applicant would have been promoted 
under any circumstances.  In view of the fact that the applicant 
did have  two O P R s   in the  file documenting his  performance as  a 
lieutenant  colonel,  as  well  as  all  the  performance  reports 
documenting his earlier record of performance; the action of the 
ERAB to  substitute a  DP recommendation for the CY 95A selection 
board; and the action we propose to further correct the contested 
PRF  to  show  he  did  not  receive  the  DP  recommendation  in 
isolation, L e . ,  that his  review group size was  \\6",  it  is our 
opinion that a duly constituted selection board would have at its 
disposal  an  adequate  record  to  make  a  reasonable  and  fair 
determination  concerning  the  applicant's  potential  to  serve  in 
the  higher  grade  in  relation  to  his  peers. 
Based  on  the 
foregoing,  we  are  not  inclined  to  usurp  the  discretionary 
authority  of  a  duly  constituted  selection  board. 
In  o u r  
estimation, placing the corrected record before an SSB was,  and 
is, the appropriate course of action in this case. 

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  (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by 
the Calendar Year 1995A Colonel Chaplain Board, which convened on 
15 Mar 95,  be  amended  in  Section  VI,  Group  Size,  to  read  "6" 
rather than Y . "  
It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to 
the  grade  of  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the 
Calendar  Year  1995A  Colonel  Chaplain  Board,  which  convened  on 
15 Mar 95, with the corrected PRF. 

4 

AFBCMR 96-02325 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 31 Mar  98, under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603: 

Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair 
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Aug 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 9 Sep 96. 
Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MIBR and AFBCMR, dated 23 Sep 96 

and 11 Nov 97. 

- 

BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV 
Panel Chair 

5 

AFBCMR  96-02325 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

0 9  SEP  1996 

Requested Action.  Applicant requests direct promotion to the grade of colonel.  He does 

not request a specific date of rank @OR). 

Basis for Request.  Applicant states he cannot be fairly considered by a special selection 
board (SSB), due to the fact that he has had four officer performance reports (OPRs) removed 
through the appeal process, and this leaves the board with an incomplete view of his duty 
performance for several reporting periods.  Applicant hrther contends that his career potential 
was irreparably damaged by a biased former rater who conveyed prejudicial information to 
commanders and subsequent raters throughout the Air Force Chaplain community. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments: 

- 

a.  Application is timely.  Applicant submitted an appeal to the Officer Personnel 

Records Review Board (OPRRB),  10 May 93, which was approved, removing the applicant’s 
OPRs closing out on 4 Feb 90 and 3 Oct 90.  The applicant also submitted an appeal to the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (EM), 11 Jul95, which was approved and removed the OPRs 
closing out on 1 Jul92 and 7 Jun 93 and replaced the applicant’s CY95A (1 5 Mar 95) (P0695A) 
promotion recommendation form (PRJ?).  The fetter announcing the OPRRB and E M ’ S  
decisions are included in the applicant’s appeal package.  The applicant was subsequently granted 
SSB consideration for the P0695A board by the 3 1 Jul95 SSB, and was nonselected for 
promotion by the board. 

b.  AFR 36-10, The Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the governing 

directive.  Applicant has one promotion nonselection by the P0695A board. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a brief fiom civilian counsel, 

excerpts from his previous appeal packages, and letters of support and explanation fi-om 
evaluators and commanders both inside and outside the applicant’s rating chain.  The basic 
contention in this appeal is that, due to the removed reports, the applicant cannot receive fair and 

! ’; 

equitable consideration by an SSB.  He believes his record is at an unfair disadvantage as a result 
of the OPRs being removed through the appeal process.  It is his contention that this creates a 
void of unrated service time which detracts from his promotion potential when considered against 
his peers.  The applicant also contends that his career opportunities have been hindered by a 
former evaluator who has purportedly prejudiced hture raters and Chaplain commanders against 
him.  The applicant includes a letter sent by the former rater in his appeal package. 

d.  It must be understood that the remedy used by the Air Force when a record is 
corrected is SSB consideration. Regardless of the circumstances, the applicant received the same 
reconsideration received by all officers who have had significant, or in some cases insignificant, 
changes made to their record through the appeal process.  It is not within our discretion to 
recommend direct promotion of Air Force officers, as we use the board process to consider all 
officers for promotion in the same manner.  The applicant has successfblly appealed the OPRs 
believed to be prejudicial, had them removed, and replaced his P0695A PRF.  Our response to 
record correction of that degree is always SSB consideration.  In that the applicant has received 
the same treatment as all other officers who have had reports removed, we believe he has been 
treated in a manner consistent with the governing regulation.  For this reason, we do not 
recommend direct promotion. 

e.  We would point out that the applicant received SSB consideration with a 
corrected (upgraded) PRF reflecting a “Definitely Promote” (DP) with a group size of ‘T7 in 
Block VI.  Policy governing the changing of the group size on a PRF to “1”  when it has been 
upgraded fiom a “Promote” to a DP has changed, mandating that the group size remain the same 
as was indicated on the original report.  Should the AFBCMR determine that SSB consideration 
is equitable for the applicant, we would not recommend against awarding the applicant SSB 
consideration with the P0695A PRF reflecting a group size of “6,” as was on the original report. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt