- 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

REC' Di F PROCEBDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00327 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

LSEP  1  7  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  The  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  rendered  for  the 
periods  24  November  1986  through 23  November  1987;  24  November 
1987  through  23  November  1988;  24  November  1988  through 
23 November  1989,  24  November  1989  through  23  November  1990; 
24 November  1990  through  23  November  1991;  24  November  1991 
through 23  November  1992;  24  November  1992  through 23  November 
1993;  24  November  1993  through  31  July  1994;  1  August  1994 
through 6 June 1995; 7 June 1995 through 6 July 1996; 7 June 1996 
through 30 November 1996 be amended. 
2.  The  OPR  rendered  for  the  period  24  November  1989  through 
23 November  1990,  Block  VI,  Rater  Overall  Assessment, 
Intermediate Service School (ISS) ,  in residence be added. 

The  OPR  rendered  for  the  period  24  November  1990  through 
3 
23 November  1991,  Block  VI,  Rater  Overall  Assessment,  ISS 
recommendation, be added. 
4.  The  OPR  rendered  for  the  period  24  November  1991  through 
23 November 1992, Block VI, Rater Overall Assessment, and Block 
VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, ISS recommendation be 
added. 

5.  The OPR rendered for the period  1 August  1994 through 6 June 
1995, duty title be amended to read "Operating Location Chief." 
6.  The  missing  AF  Form  475,  Education/Training  Report,  dated 
15 December 1995, be added to his Officer Selection Record  (OSR). 
7.  He  be  considered  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the Calendar Year 
1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

f 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

97-00327 

Virtually  all  of  his  OPRs  from  1987  on  are  technically  and 
substantively  incorrect  insofar  as  they  do  not,  due  to 
classification  restrictions, provide  even  a  remotely  accurate 
depiction  of  duties performed.  In essence, the nature of  his 
duties  has  been  of  such  a  classified  nature  that  his  rating 
officials were  confined  to  writing  excessively  “vanilla“ OPRs. 
Additionally, his duty history is ‘fraught with  inaccuracies and 
duty  titles  that  are  incorrect,  also  based  on  security 
restrictions. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the 
rater on  the  OPRs  closing 23  November  1990,  23  November  1991, 
23 November  1992,  stating  that  the  very  nature  of  applicant‘s 
day-to-day  duties  has  for  many  years  been  of  such  a  highly 
classified nature that a great deal of his real accomplishments 
and  duties  simply  could  not  be  included  in  the  Air  Force 
evaluation system due to security restrictions.  This pervasive 
problem  with program  security guides  in effect  tying a  rater’s 
hands to a large extent not only impacted applicant’s OPRs, but 
carried over into having to “data mask“ duty locations and duty 
titles.  This may have had a negative impact on how applicant’s 
records would be perceived by a central selection board.  He did 
not specifically recommend applicant for ISS  in his OPRs closing 
23 November  1990  and  23 November  1991,  in  the  Rater  Overall 
Assessment block.  He was  told that existing AF  policy  did not 
allow  such  recommendations  for  majors. 
The  OPR  closing 
23 November  1992  covered  the  period  applicant pinned  on major. 
He again recalls specific AF policy stating he was unable to make 
such  a  recommendation due  to  applicant  having  just  pinned  on 
major.  He never intended to convey a negative message to anyone 
and would have recommended applicant for attendance at ISS. 

Applicant  also  submits  a  statement  from  the  Chief,  Personnel, 
AFOSI  Region  7/DP,  stating  the  duty  title  on  the  report  is 
“Chief  Security  Operations  Product  Division” and  should  read 
“Operating Location Chief .” 

Location Chief. 

statement  from 
,  stating the du 
. 

error. 

It  reads  Chief,  Security 
The  title  should  read  Operating 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of major. 

97-00327 

Applicant  was  considered and  not  selected for promotion to  the 
grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY96C  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Selection Board. 

The  applicant  submitted three  appeals  to  the  Evaluation Report 
Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401, 
Correcting Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation Reports.  Applicant 
appealed  to  have  a  missing  AF  Form  475,  Training  Report, 
15 December 1995,  added  to his  OSR.  This was  approved by  the 
ERAB  and  the  applicant received SSB consideration by  the  CY96C 
board on 19 May 1997 to include the training report. 

The applicant submitted two appeals to change the duty title on 
the OPR closing 6 June 1995 under the provisions of AFI 36-2401. 
The first appeal was denied by the ERAE3 on 25 March 1996 and they 
declined  to  formally reconsider the  second  appeal  on  25  April 
1996. 
OER/OPR profile since 1987, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

23 Nov 8 7  
23 Nov 88 
23 Nov 8 9  
23 Nov 90 
23 Nov 91 
23 Nov 92 
31 Jul 93 
31 Jul 94 
06 Jun 95 
15 Dec 95 
06 Jun 96 
30 Nov 96 

# 

EVALUA TION OF POTENTIAL 

1-1-1 

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

Education/Training Report 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

*  Contested Reports 
#  Top report at time of CY96C board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Assignment  Information Systems, AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed 
the  application  and  states  that  member's  duty  history  on  HAF 
coincides with  OPRs  contained  in the  selection  folder.  Their 
office has no action at this time. 

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

9 7 - 0 0 3 2 7  

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application  and  states  that  the  applicant  provides  no 
unclassified documentation to support the contested reports were 
not written in compliance with governing regulations.  Air Force 
policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when 
it becomes a matter of record.  It takes substantial evidence to 
the contrary to have a report changed or voided.  To effectively 
challenge an OPR, it is important to hear from all the evaluators 
from  the  reports -  not  only  for support, but  for clarification 
and explanation.  The applicant has provided limited information 
from just a few of the many raters.  While the raters support the 
applicant's  appeal,  they  do  not  convince  them  the  original 
reports are invalid.  There is no evidence provided in this case 
that  suggests the  contested OPRs were  written  in a manner  that 
violates  Air  Force  policy.  AFI  36-2402  clearly  states  these 
reports will not contain classified information.  The applicant's 
rater  contends  he  recalls  specific  Air  Force  policy  that 
prohibited  making  recommendations  for  Professional  Military 
Education  (PME).  AFR  36-10(C1), 1  Feb  90, is  the  governing 
directive  and  states,  in  part,  Ilrecommendations  to  select 
for ... PME. ..are appropriate."  PME recommendations are optional, 
and  have  never  been  prohibited.  The  purpose  of  the  appeals 
process  (to include  SSBs)  is  not  to  improve  the  applicant's 
promotion  potential,  but  to  correct  substantiated  errors  or 
injustices. 
They  do  not  find  reason  to  amend  any  of  the 
applicant's last 11 OPRs.  In the absence of convincing evidence 
from  the  rating  chain,  they  must  assume  the  OPRs  are  valid. 
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's request. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUA TION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and has provided 
his  comments to  the  advisory.  He also states that  he  requests 
the  AFBCMR  take  his  comments  into  consideration  regarding  HQ 
AFPC/DPPPA,s recommendation of denial for his appeal.  He stands 
by his original observations provided  in his appeal, with  these 
comments added for clarification. 

He also submits a statement from AFOSI/CC stating that applicant 
receive  SSB  consideration  in  light  of  the  fact  a  significant 
portion  of  his  actual  duties  and  accomplishments  were  not 
included  in  his  Record  of  Performance  due  to  their  classified 
nature. 

Applicant's complete  response, with  attachment, is  attached  at 
Exhibit F. 

9 7 - 0 0 3 2 7  

THE BOAR D CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  ,presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  in 
regard  to  applicant’s  request  that  his  performance  reports 
rendered  since 1 9 8 7   be  amended.  Applicant believes that  these 
reports do not provide an accurate depiction of duties performed. 
After  having  carefully weighed  the  contents of  the  applicant’s 
performance  reports against  the  true  nature  of  his  assignments 
and the caliber of  his duty performance, we  believe he  has not 
been deprived of  an opportunity to fairly compete for promotion 
to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  along  with  his  peers. 
Applicant has provided a statement from the rater of the reports 
who indicates that the very nature of applicant’s duties were of 
a  highly  classified  nature  and  that  a  great  deal  of  his 
accomplishments and duties could not be included on the contested 
reports.  While  we  understand  the  restrictions placed  on  the 
rating chain members in preparing these reports, we believe that 
they  adequately  describe  the  quality  of  the  applicant’s 
accomplishments and performance  during the periods  in question. 
In  addition,  we  note  that  the  applicant  has  not  provided 
statements  from  the  other  rating  chain  members  nor  has  he 
provided  the  Board  with  reaccomplished  reports  reflecting  the 
desire  amendments.  Regardless,  the  evidence  that  we  reviewed 
reveals that his performance reports rendered from 1 9 8 7   to 1 9 9 6  
provided sufficient information in order for him to receive fair 
and equitable consideration for promotion. 
4 .   Notwithstanding the  above determination, we  do believe  that 
several corrections to his records are justified.  The statement 
from the rater of the OPRs rendered from 24  November 1 9 8 9   through 
23  November 1 9 9 2 ,   states that he recalls that specific Air Force 
policy prohibited PME recommendations being added to performance 
reports.  The  Air  Force  states  that  no  such  policy  existed. 
After  reviewing the  rater’s statement, we  believe  that had  the 
rater  been  informed  that  PME  recommendations  were  allowed  he 
would have added the appropriate PME statements to the contested 
reports.  Applicant’s duty title on the OPR closing 3 1  July 1 9 9 4  
was Operating Location Chief.  Applicant appears to have had no 
change in his duties from July 1 9 9 4   to 6  June 1 9 9 5 .   Therefore, 
we believe the duty title on the OPR closing 6  June 1 9 9 5   should 
also  be  Operating  Location  Chief.  In  regard  to  his  request 
pertaining  to the AF  Form  4 7 5 ,   Education/Training Report, dated 
15  December  1 9 9 5 ,   the  corrected  form  has  been  placed  in  his 
record  through  administrative  channels.  In view  of  the  above 
recommended corrections to his records, we also believe that his 
corrected record should be considered for promotion to the grade 
of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar 
Year 1 9 9 6 C   Central lieutenant Colonel Board. 

5 

97-00327 

5.  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  issue(s) 
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: 

a.  The  Company  Grade  Officer  Performance Report  (OPR), AF 
Form  707B,  rendered  for  the  period  24  November  1989  through 
23 November  1990,  be  amended  in  Section  VI,  Rater  Overall 
Assessment, to  read  as the  last  sentence "Send to  Intermediate 
School, in residence. " 

b.  The  Company  Grade  OPR, AF  Form  707B,  rendered  for  the 
period  24  November 1990 through 23 November 1991, be amended in 
Section  VI,  Rater  Overall  Assessment,  to  read  as  the  last 
sentence "Send to Intermediate Service School, in residence." 

c.  The  Field  Grade  OPR,  AF  Form  707A,  rendered  for  the 
period  24 November  1991 through 23 November 1992, be amended  in 
Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, and Section VII, Additional 
Rater Overall Assessment, to read  "Intermediate Service School, 
in residence. I' 

d.  The  Field  Grade  OPR,  AF  Form  707A,  rendered  f o r   the 
period  1 August  1994  through 6 June 1995, be amended in Section 
111, Job Description, 1. Duty Title, to read "Operating Location 
Chief . I r  
It is further recommended that his corrected record, to include 
the  above amended OPRs  and  the AF  Form 475, Education/Training 
Report, dated  15 December 1995,  be  considered  for promotion  to 
the  grade of  lieutenant  colonel by  Special Selection Board  for 
the CY96 Central Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 10 August  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Mr. John J. Nethery, Member 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 

6 

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

The 

97-00327 

Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit A.  DD Form  149, dated 29 January 1997, w/atchs. 
Exhibit  B. 
Exhibit  C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIS~, dated 28 February 1997. 
Exhibit  D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 9 'April 1997. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR,  dated 28 April 1997. 
Exhibit  E. 

Applicant's Response, dated 23 May 1997. 

AL d 

d J J c k  

BARBARA  A.  WESTGAT - 
Panel Chair 

7 

I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-00327 

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 1 16), it is directed that: 

\

’

 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 

be corrected to show that: 

a. 

The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707B, 

rendered for the period 24 November 1989 through 23 November 1990, be amended in Section 
VI, Rater Overall Assessment, to read as the last sentence “Send to Intermediate Service School, 
in residence.’’ 

b. 

The Company Grade OPR,AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 24 November 

1990 through 23 November 1991, be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, to read 
as the last sentence “Send to Intermediate Service School, in residence.’’ 

c. 

The Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 24 November 
199 1 through 23 November 1992, be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, and 
Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, to read as the last sentence “Send to 
Intermediate Service School, in residence.” 

d.  The Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 1 August 1994 

through 6 June 1995, be amended in Section 111, Job Description, 1. Duty Title, to read 
“Operating Location Chief.” 

It is further directed that his corrected record, to include the above amended OPRs and the 

AF Form 475, EducatiodTraining Report, dated 15 December 1995, be considered for promotion 
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY96 Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency