. . 

. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01019 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO  1- Pt.3  7  9  Fggg 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  rendered  for  the 
1. 
periods 1 July 1992 through 30 June 1993 and 1 July 1993 through 
30 June 1994, be declared void  and replaced with  reaccomplished 
reports covering the same periods. 

2.  He  be  considered  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by Special Selection Boards  (SSBs) for the Calendar Years 
1995 (CY95A) and 1996 (CY96A) lieutenant colonel boards. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  contested  OPRs  were  completed  in  an  administratively 
1. 
substandard and  significantly deletive  manner  in  regard  to  his 
actual  work  efforts,  activities,  achievement,  and  performance. 
He states that this significantly misrepresented his performance, 
abilities, and potential for promotion and advancement. 

2.  He  was  not  given  any  feedback  on  these  reports  and  was 
unaware  of  the  substandard  nature  until  his  nonselection  for 
promotion to the grade of hieutenant colonel.  He states he had 
faith  in  the  system  that  his  strong  work  ethic,  effort,  and 
performance would be reflected and fare him well as it always had 
in the past. 

3.  The contested  reports were  in his  official  record  for both 
CY95 and CY96 Lieutenant Colonel MC  Promotion Boards at which he 
was  nonselected  and  feedback  from  senior  officer  mentors 
indicates  the  reports  were  significant  contributors  toward 
nonselection. 

4.  Promotion Recommendation Forms  (PRFs) submitted to these same 
selection  boards  contained  outright  erroneous  and  potentially 
confusing statements.  He states that these PRF errors placed his 
activities  out  of  chronological  order  creating  confusion 
regarding his medical career path. 

. 

97-01019 

5. 
Promotion  Reports  on  Individual  Personnel  (RIPS)  did  not 
contain important and vital information regarding his background’ 
despite  prior  presence  and/or  repetitive  document  submission 
He  states  the 
through  appropriate  administrative  channels. 
omitted/deleted items included accession/commission through U.S. 
Naval Academy graduation, prior Navy/Marine Corps flight training 
and  aviation  rating,  educational  attainment  of  M. D.  degree, 
specialty 
in 
dermatology,  and  completion  of  the  USAF  Aerospace  Medicine 
Primary  (AMP)  course/USAF Flight Surgeon aeronautical rating.  He 
states  that  these  items  all  contributed  to  an  erroneous  and 
significantly deletive portrayal of his achievements, abilities, 
and  potential  for  advancement  within  his  official  record 
presented  to  both  CY95  and  CY96  lieutenant  colonel  promotion 
boards  with  unquestionable contribution  toward his  nonselection 
for promotion. 

qualification/certification 

medical 

board 

6.  He  did  not  have  a  fair  chance  at  advancement  given  this 
situation in which his senior leadership dropped the ball and let 
him down. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, 
statements  from  the  rater,  who  states  that  he  was  terribly 
overburdened in his own duties causing him to spend an inadequate 
amount of time  to research and prepare  the contested O P R s . .   He 
also states that he was  given no  instruction in the proper  and 
appropriate completion of subordinate OPRs, which  combined with 
his  foreign  national  background  and  subsequent  suboptimal 
eloquence  with  the  English  language  hindered  the  optimal 
completion  of  representative,  competitive OPRs  as  is  the  case 
with  applicant’s  appealed  OPRs. 
He  also  submitted a  statement 
from the additional rater who states the contested reports were 
significantly  sparse  and  sketchy  administratively  while  being 
partially  deletive  and  misfocused  so  as  to  substantially 
misrepresent  the  applicant’s  performance,  abilities,  and 
potential for promotion and advancement. 

I- 

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The  applicant  submitted  two  similar  applications  under  AFI 
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The 
Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board  was  not  convinced  by  the 
applicant‘s documentation on either application and denied both 
appeals. 

Applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for promotion  to  the 
grade  of  lieutenant colonel by  the  CY95A  and  CY96A  lieutenant 
colonel  boards. 
Applicant  was  released  from  active  duty  on 
31 July 1997. 

2 

97-01019 

OER profile since 1991, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

30 Jun 91 
30 Jun 92 
*30 Jun 93 
*30 Jun 94 
30 Jun 95 
30 Jun 96 

Education/Training Report 
Education/Training Report 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

*  Contested reports 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION : 
The Acting  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed 
the application and states that they do not believe the rater has 
a problem expressing himself in the English language.  It appears 
the rater wrote the reports exactly as intended-he documented the 
applicant's  performance as he saw it instead of embellishing it 
for a promotion board's  benefit.  Any report can be rewritten to 
be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the 
ratee's  promotion potential.  But the time to do that is before 
the  report  becomes  a  matter  of  record.  It  appears  the  rater 
wrote  the  reports  exactly  as  intended;  however,  he  does  not 
explain how  he  was  hindered  from rendering a  fair and  accurate 
assessment  of  the  applicant's  performance  prior  to  the  report 
being  made  a  matter  of  record.  They  further  state  that  the 
appeals process  does  not  exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance 
chances for promotion. 

In reference to the applicant contending that he did not receive 
feedback during the contested reporting periods,  they quote AFR 
36-10, paragraphs 2-3a and  2-8a,  stating that  feedback sessions 
are  mandatory  for  lieutenants  and  captains  and  optional,  but 
encouraged  for  majors  through  colonels. 
Further,  AFR  36-10, 
paragraph 2-6b(l), states the member is responsible for notifying 
the rater and, if necessary, the additional rater if a required 
or  requested feedback session did  not  take place.  Regardless, 
AFR  36-10, paragraph 2-11, states, "A rater's  failure to conduct 
a  required  or  requested  feedback  session will  not,  of  itself, 
invalidate an OPR or PRF." 

In regards to the applicant's  contentions that the PRFs for the 
CY95A  and  CY96A  boards  contained  erroneous  and  potentially 
confusing  statements;  they  point  out  he  has  never  challenged 
these  PRFs  under  the provisions  of AFI  36-2401.  They  further 
state that  in order to successfully challenge the validity of a 
report, it  is imperative to hear  from the evaluators concerned, 
f o r  
not 
However,  neither  is  heard  from. 
clarification/explanation. 

necessarily 

support, 

for 

but 

at 

least 

3 

97-01019 

Furthermore,  if  the  information  contained  on  these  PRFs  is 
inaccurate, then they do not understand why the applicant did not 
make an effort to contact both of  the evaluators and request they 
support  him  in  his  appeal  efforts  and  reaccomplish  the  PRFs. 
They state the applicant's  duty history supports the chronology 
as  he  contends  it  should  be;  however,  without  benefit  of  the 
evaluators'  support, they recommend denial on this issue. 

They also make reference to the applicant contending that several 
items on the CY95A officer selection brief were either omitted or 
deleted.  Such as: 

a.  Accession/commission through US Naval Academy graduation. 

They state that while this information was not on the CY95A OSB, 
it  was  updated  in  time  to  be  included  on  the  CY96A  OSB. 
paragraph g below. 

See 

b. 

Prior  Navy/Marine  Corps  flight  training  and  aviation 
rating.  They  state,  this  information is not  on  either  of  the 
See paragraph  g  below.  In addition, the  applicant has 
OSBs. 
provided  nothing  to  verify  he  made  an  attempt  prior  to  either 
board  to  get  this  information  updated  in  the  personnel  data 
system (PDS) . 

c.  Education attainment of MD degree.  They state, while not 
on  the  CY95A  OSB,  it  was  updated  in time  for  inclusion on  the 
CY96A OSB.  Also, if the AFBCMR decides in favor of the applicant 
and grants reconsideration by either board, this information will 
be included on one or both of the O S B s .   See paragraph g below. 

d.  Specialty medical  board  qualification/certification in 
dermatology.  They note both OSBs  indicate he is board certified. 
However, the certificate was not filed until 7 October 1996, just 
prior to the CY96A board.  Even though the certificate was not on 
file for the CY95A board,  it was  in evidence before  the board. 
Therefore, the board members were knowledgeable the applicant had 
been board  certified which  is the ultimate purpose  of including 
this entry on the OSB. 
Since the board members were aware of the 
certification, it was factored into the promotion evaluation. 

e.  Completion of  the 'USAF Aerospace  Primary  (AMP) course. 
They  state, this course is not  considered professional military 
educational and,  therefore, would  not  be  a  valid  entry  on  the 
OSB . 

f.  USAF flight surgeon aeronautical rating.  See discussion 
in paragraph  g below.  They state, in addition, the applicant's 
servicing military  personnel  (MPF) can  assist  in  getting  this 
information input into the PDS. 

g.  Discussion.  The officer preselection brief  ( O P B )   is sent 
to  each  eligible  officer  several  months  prior  to  a  s e l e c t i o n  
board.  The OPB  contains data that will appear on the OSB at the 
central  board.  Written  instructions  attached  to  the  OPB  and 

4 

97- 01019 

given  to  the  officer  before  the  central  selection  board 
specifically instruct him/her to carefully examine the brief  for 
completeness  and  accuracy.  If  any  errors  are  found,  the  OPB 
identifies the appropriate agency he/she must  contact to ensure 
the  information  in  the  PDS  is  correct. 
He/she  must  take 
corrective  action  prior  to  the  selection board,  not  after  it. 
The  instruction  specifically  state,  "Officers  will  not  be 
considered  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  if,  in  exercising 
reasonable  diligence,  the  officer  should  have  discovered  the 
error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely 
corrective  action"  (emphasis  added) . 
They  do  not  support 
promotion reconsideration on this portion of the appeal. 

They  further  state  that  each  officer  eligible  for  promotion 
consideration is advised of the entitlement to communicate with 
the  board  president.  They  verified  that  the  applicant  sent  a 
letter to the CY95A board president, but did not send one to the 
CY96A  board  president. 
They  point  out  that  while  they  are 
unaware  of  the  content  of  the  letter  to  the  CY95A  board 
president,  the  applicant  could  have  used  this means  to discuss 
the discrepancies in his record in not only the CY95A letter but 
in  a  letter  to  the  CY96A  board  president  had  he  elected  to 
exercise  this  entitlement. 
Therefore,  based  on  the  evidence 
provided,  they  recommend  denial  on  all  issues.  If  the  AFBCMR 
grants relief on the OPR  issues, the applicant should then seek 
support from the senior rater and MLRB president  to correct the 
Without  this  required  support,  they  strongly  recommend 
PRFs. 
denial on the PRF  issues. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C . 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and  states that 
he  submits  that  his  rater  had  substantial  assistance  in  the 
preparation  of not  only  the  rater  support  letter of  29 January 
1997, but also in the rewritten, requested substitute O P R s   by his 
additional rater.  He states that his additional rater presented 
to  him  upon  his  initial  notification  of  nonselection  for 
promotion  his  own  personal  feelings  of  responsibility, 
culpability, and guilt for his situation in his allowing subject 
O P R s   to pass inappropriately into his record.  He  (the additional 
rater) presented to the applicant that he thought at the time of 
the applicant's  review he was only in for the duration of medical 
school payback and  therefore it wouldn't  really matter  what  his 
O P R s   said and  thus  were  not  worth  the  administrative hassle  of 
rewriting. 

He  states  regarding  the  submitted  PRF  inaccuracies  and  the 
critiqued lack  of  prior  appeal and  senior  and  management  level 
review board  (MLRB  president support, he submits that these were 

5 

. 

97-01019 

relatively minor discrepancies in his delemma and not felt to be 
worthy of pursuing solely on their own merit. 
In regards to the critique of items deleted or omitted from the 
Officer  Selection Briefs, he  states that he diligently  followed 
directions  provided  within  the  officer  preselection  briefs  to 
update his administrative record. 

He  further  states  that  after  twenty-three  consecutive years  of 
wearing  a uniform in the service of  our  country and carrying  a 
green  active  duty  identification  card  while  working  diligently 
and in earnest and always conscientiously doing the right thing, 
his military career is suddenly and abruptly finished without the 
retirement which he endured for so long. 
He  presents  this  appeal  as  a  final  plea  for  fairness  and 
equitable  treatment consideration.  He  asks,  is  there  anything 
out there right or just about the system. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT : 
1. 
law or regulations. 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  f o r   our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of an error or  injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

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. 

6 

97-01019 

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

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L .   Spence, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 

DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 97, w/atchs. 
Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA dated 21 Apr 97. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 May 97. 
Applicantis Response, dated 2 Aug 97. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

7