AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY REC 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  He be reassigned to a command position. 
2.  All negative documentation be removed from his record. 
3 .   His  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for  the  P0696B 
Colonel  Selection  Board  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his 
records; and, that a new  PRF be  rendered by  an appropriate and 
impartial general officer other than his senior rater. 
4.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by  a 
Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) for  the  CY96B  (P0696B) Colonel 
Selection Board, which  convened on 2 December  1996, with  a  new 
PRF. 
In  his  rebuttal  comments,  the  applicant  indicated  that  the 
documents he is requesting be removed and destroyed include:  (a) 
The letter from 45 Space Wing  (SW/CV) to Air Force Space Command 
his  reassignment  (see Exhibit -A, atch  4), 
(AFS PC/ DP)  requesting 
and computer memory retained at  45 SW, HQ 
including file copies 
The microfilm  historical  copy  of  the  PRF 
AFPC,  or AFSPC. 
(b) 
HQ AFPC.  (c) Any  internal memos retained 
that is maintained by 
HQ AFPC,  or  AFSPC  that  allude  to  poor 
by  offices  of  45  SW, 
from his position as commander. 
performance or removal 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He  was  unjustly  removed  from his  position  as  commander of  the 
45th Civil  Engineering  Squadron  (45  CES) . 
This  resulted  in 
falsely  harmful  correspondence  being  placed  in  his  record, 
completely negating his chances for promotion. 
In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement, copies of his PRF for the P0696B Board, a Performance 
Feedback Worksheet  (PFW), a statement from his rater, his Field 
Grade Officer Performance Report  (OPR), closing 29 February 1996, 
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his 
contentions (Exhibit A). 

E 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
reveals  the  applicant's  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service 
Date  (TAFMSD) as 4 June 1975.  He is currently serving on active 
duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with an effective date 
and date of rank of 1 November 1991. 
The  applicant's  assignment  history,  extracted  from  his  Officer 
Selection Brief  (OSB), prepared for the P0696B Colonel Selection 
Board, indicates that, from 25 June 1995 -  30 June 1996, he held 
the  duty  title  of  commander,  Civil  Engineer  Squadron,  Patrick 
AFB.  Effective  1  July  1996,  applicant held  the  duty  title  of 
Special Duty Officer, Civil Engineer Squadron, Patrick AFB. 
Applicant's  OPR  profile,  commencing  with  the 
30- January 1991, follows: 
Period Endina 

report  closing 

Evaluation 
Meets Standards 

(MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

91 
30 Jan 
91 
23 Aug 
92 
20 Jan 
93 
20 Jan 
93 
29 Oct 
94 
30 Apr 
28 Feb 
95 
96 
#  29 Feb 
97 
##29 Mar 
29 Mar 
98 
time he 
#  Top report at  the 
promotion to  colonel by  the 
convened on 2 December 1996. 
# #   Top report at the time he 
promotion to  colonel by  the 
convened on 8 December 1997. 
On 3 May 1994, the AFBCMR considered and recommended approval of 
applicant's  request  that  the  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR),  closing  30  January  1990,  be  removed  from  his 
records.  On 25 May 1994, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards 
directed  the  removal  of  the  30  January  1990  OPR  from  the 
applicant's  records  and  that  he  be  provided  supplemental 
promotion  consideration to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  for 
the CY91A (15 April 1991) Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board, and 
for  any  subsequent  boards  for  which  the  OPR  was  a  matter  of 
record. 

was  considered and 
nonselected  for 
CY96B Central  Colonel Board, which 

was considered and nonselected for 
CY97B Central  Colonel Board, which 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Directorate  of  Assignments,  HQ  AFPC/DPAIP2,  reviewed  this 
application concerning the assignment issues.  DPAIP2 stated that 

2 

97-01693 

the applicant does not cite any specific "assignment" policies or 
procedures as unjust.  The applicant expresses concern about time 
on station (TOS) and funding of a PCS.  DPAIP2 stated that if the 
Board directs a PCS, the minimum TOS requirement for PCS would be 
waived and any move would be funded from the normal Air Force PCS 
open appropriation, unless the Board directs otherwise. 
DPAIP2  stated  that  the  applicant's  request  for  reassignment  to 
another commander position of at least equal stature to that from 
which  removed  may  not  be  practical  and  might  not  be  in  the 
applicant's  best interests for the following reasons: 

(1)  If the applicant  is selected for promotion  to the grade 
of  colonel,  another  commander  assignment  equivalent  to  his 
previous commander assignment might be  inconsistent with the new 
rank. 

(2)  Assigning  the  applicant  to  a  commander  position  \\of at 
least equal stature" might necessitate terminating the assignment 
of  some  other  officer,  unless  the  Board  allows  a  reasonable 
length of time to effect such an assignment. 

( 3 )   The  term  \\of  at  least  equal  stature"  is  vague. 
Significant difference of opinion could arise over whether or not 
a particular assignment was in keeping with the spirit and intent 
of the findings of the Board. 
If the  Board  finds an  injustice exists,  DPAIP2  recommended  the 
following as alternatives to the action the applicant requests: 

(1)  The  record  be  corrected  to  show  completion  of  the 

commander assignment, or 

(2)  The applicant be reinstated as the commander of the unit 
at  the  location  to  which  he  was  assigned  at  the  time  of  the 
injustice, or 

( 3 )   Any  further assignment be based  on the needs of the Air 

Force and the applicant's  qualifications. 
DPAIP2 recommended that the applicant's  request to be reassigned 
to another commander position of equal stature be denied.  If the 
Board  finds  that  the  documentation  was  unjust  and  corrective 
action  is  appropriate,  then  for  the  reasons  indicated  above, 
DPAIP2 recommended one of the alternative actions (Exhibit C). 
The Directorate of  Personnel Program Management,  HQ AFPC/DPPPA, 
reviewed this application and stated that the applicant's  P0696B 
PRF indicates he had been  removed from his position and that he 
"failed  to  demonstrate  the  leadership  required  to  manage  the 
broadly  diverse  and  complex  civil  engineering  demands  of  the 
Eastern Range and Patrick AFB."  DPPPA noted that in response to 
the  applicant's  Inspector  General  (IG)  complaint,  SAF/IGS 
indicated that the applicant's  allegation of wrongdoing was  not 
substantiated.  DPPPA reviewed the OPR, closing 29 February 1996, 

3 

97-01693 

c 

and  found  no  reference  to  the  applicant's  removal  from  his 
position.  Therefore, DPPPA does not support any type of request 
for removal or correction.  With  regard to the  letter from the 
rater of the 29  February 1996 OPR, DPPPA stated that  the rater 
only  indicated  he  would  hire  the  applicant  again  given  the 
opportunity  -  he  did  not  address  anything  in  the  OPR. 
The 
applicant did not submit a statement from the senior rater of the 
P0696B PRF.  Since the evaluators of the reports in question did 
not  submit  specific  statements  of  support,  DPPPA  can  only 
conclude the  PRF and OPR are accurate as written.  DPPPA noted 
that  the  applicant  did  not  specifically cite  what  document(s), 
other  than  the  OPR  and  PRF  in  question,  he  wants  destroyed. 
DPPPA  indicated  that  none  of  the  letters  of  support and  other 
documents  submitted  state  the  evaluators  rated  the  applicant 
inaccurately.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommended 
the  applicant's  request  be  denied.  A  complete  copy  of  this 
evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated that 
the evaluations fail to address the central issue -  that he was 
"unjustly  removed  from  the  pos'ition  of  squadron  commander  and 
re a s s i gned . 
His  original  request  was  for  "immediate 
reassignment" to a squadron commander position of at least equal 
stature;  L e . ,   roughly  the  same  size  squadron  and  level  of 
responsibility.  Had  such immediate reassignment been  approved, 
he would still have been a lieutenant colonel, and that level of 
position would be appropriate.  The contention that it would be 
inappropriate if  he  is  promoted  to  colonel  avoids  the  central 
issue,  since  if promoted  to  colonel,  he  would  accept  whatever 
assignment he received commensurate with that rank.  His reason 
for  suggesting  PCS  funding alternatives was  to  provide  another 
route  in  the  possible  event  that  lack  of  such  funds became  a 
factor in the final decision on his application.  As  stated in 
his application, no one to whom SAF/IGS spoke was able to produce 
one  piece  of  evidence  that  he  had  been  'informed  on  several 
occasions''  that  his  performance  was  somehow  a  threat  to  his 
continued  command.  If the people  in his  rating  chain were  so 
unhappy with  his performance, then there should have been OPRs, 
feedback forms, memos for record of counseling sessions, etc., to 
support his removal.  No such documentation exists. 
As to whether the general has the authority to remove a commander 
serving  under  him,  that  point  has  never  been  questioned.  The 
issue  is  whether  he  has  the  authority  to  do  so  without  prior 
warning  and  in  opposition to  all  performance  indicators.  The 
referenced  PRF  was  rendered  months  after  his  removal  as 
commander.  At  that point,  the  senior rater was  constrained to 
write  something  that  supported  his  own  actions  or  have  the 
obvious  inconsistency  call  those  actions  even  further  into 
question.  The  referenced  OPR  was  rendered  shortly before  his 
removal and hence makes no mention of that removal; nor does it 
mention any substandard performance.  He never requested removal 

4 

97- 01693 

of  the  OPR.  The  OPR  was  included  in  his  application  for  its 
probative  value  in  demonstrating the  inconsistency between  his 
performance  and  his  removal.  DPPPA  stated  that  they  did  not 
"hear from the senior rater on the P0696B  PRF."  In actuality, 
the senior rater has been heard from twice; once on the included 
OPR  and  again  when  he  removed  him  as  commander. 
Two  such 
manifestations  of  opinion  cannot  be  so  closely  timed  yet  so 
diametrically  opposed  and  both  be  accurate.  He  has  provided 
documentation from the rater, as well as others in a position to 
observe, that  substantiates the  senior  rater's  high  praise  for 
his  performance  as  stated  on  the  OPR.  Therefore,  the  obvious 
conclusion is that his  removal was  not  based  on  some long-term 
shortcoming in  leadership, but  on  some particular  incident,  as 
stated  in  his  application  package. 
The  PRF  must  then  be 
inaccurate by virtue of its false and unsupported allegations of 
poor  leadership, and  should be  removed.  The  individuals whose 
testimonials he has provided worked closely with him on a daily 
basis.  The  fact  that  they  were  not  officially  in  his  rating 
chain  does  not  negate  their  ability  to  accurately  observe 
actions, evaluate performance and render a valid opinion. 
The pivotal issue contained in the application is the fact that, 
contrary to Air Force policy, he was arbitrarily and capriciously 
removed from his position as squadron commander.  As a result of 
this action and subsequent actions derived from it, he has been 
denied any chance to further serve the Air Force in positions of 
increased responsibility.  The senior rater was afforded numerous 
opportunities to provide specific justification for his removal, 
and in all instances was unable to do so. 
A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit E. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
HQ AFPC/DPAIP2, responded to the 
The Directorate of Assignments, 
was  unjustly  removed  from  the 
applicant's  assertion  that  he 
and  reassigned.  DPAIPZ  stated 
position  of  squadron  commander 
PCS  from  Patrick  AFB,  FL,  to 
that  preceding  the  applicant's 
took place.  None of the actions 
Dallas, TX, a series of actions 
the purview of DPAIP2' s off ice . 
resulting in his PCS fall under 
modifies in some way the actions 
DPAIP2 stated that if the Board 
upon  which  the  PCS was based,  then  further reassignment may  be 
appropriate (Exhibit F) . 
The Chief, Officer Evaluation Boards,  HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, addressed 
the  technical  aspects  of  this  case. 
DPPPEB  stated  that  the 
applicant was  removed  from  his  position  as  the  civil  engineer 
squadron commander on 1 July 1996 by his senior rater  (Brig Gen 
Brig  Gen H--- then included comments on the  P0696B PRF 
H--- 
indicating the applicant failed to demonstrate leadership and was 
replaced  as  squadron commander  after  one  year.  DPPPEB  stated 
that  although  the  applicant  claims  his  senior  rater  included 
inappropriate  comments  on  his  PRF,  evidence  provided  does  not 
substantiate  this  allegation.  The  applicant  has  not  provided 

) .  

5 

97-01693 

. 

supporting  documentation  from  his  management  level  president 
indicating  the  officer  did  not  receive  fair  and  equitable 
treatment in the PRF process.  DPPPEB indicated that there is no 
provision  in  AFI  36-2402  which  allows  anyone  other  than  the 
officer's  designated  senior  rater  to  reaccomplish  a  PRF. 
If 
substantial evidence is presented  to prove a PRF is invalid, it 
is  removed  from  the  Record  of  Performance  (ROP),  it  is  not 
reaccomplished by  an impartial officer.  DPPPEB stated that the 
applicant  had  the  option  of  writing  a  letter  to  the  Central 
Selection Board president prior to the board convening.  A senior 
rater is responsible for the content and promotion recommendation 
awarded  on  a  PRF  and  there  is  no  evidence  to  support  the 
applicant's  claim of anything but  fair and equitable treatment. 
Since  no  evidence  has  been  provided  which  shows  Air  Force 
regulations  and  guidelines  were  not  adhered  to,  DPPPEB 
recommended  the  original  PRF  remain  a  part  of  the  applicant's 
record  (Exhibit G) . 
The  Directorate of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP, 
stated that the applicant is now requesting the original P0696B 
PRF be voided and reaccomplished by another general officer other 
than  the  senior  rater  who  rendered  the  contested  PRF. 
DPPP 
concurs with  the  assessment of  HQ AFPC/DPPPEB.  DPPP  indicated 
that, as stated in their original advisory, in order to challenge 
the validity of an evaluation report, in this case a PRF, it is 
imperative to  have  support  from both  the  senior  rater  and  the 
management  level  review  board  (MLRB) president  concerning  the 
contested  PRF. 
The  applicant  has  provided  no  supporting 
documentation from either individual.  In particular, a statement 
from the senior rater which states exactly why the applicant was 
removed from command and explaining the comment included in the 
applicant's  PRF  regarding  his  removal  might  shed  some  light. 
Without the support of the senior rater and MLRB president, DPPP 
does not believe the PRF should be voided.  DPPP stated that if 
the Board decided the PRF should be voided, then they recommend 
promotion reconsideration by the P0696B Board with an AF Form 77 
in  place  of  the  voided  PRF  as  there  is  no  provision  in  AFI 
36-2402  which  allows  someone  other  than  the  senior  rater  to 
accomplish a PRF (Exhibit H). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
He stated that the DPPP assertion that "it is imperative to have 
support  from both  the  senior rater and management  level  review 
board  (MLRB) president" for  the  action he  has  requested to be 
considered valid  is unrealistic for several reasons.  He stated 
that there is no regulatory requirement making such documentation 
"imperative."  AFPC is suggesting that the only way to achieve a 
favorable outcome is to obtain a statement from the senior rater 
in which he denounces his own judgment as related to a previous 
action.  AFPC has gone to great lengths to explain the philosophy 
behind the creation and use of the PRF.  However, they would have 
to agree that the PRF is not intended to give official sanction 
to improper or capricious actions by senior raters, not based on 

6 

97-01693 

c 

performance, that have career-ending impact on subordinates.  The 
PRF in question cites a failure to "demonstrate leadership," yet, 
only two months before his removal as commander, the same senior 
rater said he was an "exceptional off icer-inspired leader . 
In 
this  case  the  PRF was  used  to  justify an  improper action,  not 
rate performance  (Exhibit J) . 

' I  

THE BOARD 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.  We 
took notice of the applicant's  complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case.  However, in our opinion, these documents do 
not  support  a  finding  that  the  senior  rater,  tasked  with  the 
responsibility  of  assessing  the  applicant's  performance  and 
promotion  based  potential,  was  unable  to  render  an  unbiased 
evaluation  at  that  time.  We  are  unpersuaded  by  the  evidence 
presented  that  the  PRF  was  based  on  factors  other  than  the 
applicant's  duty performance and demonstrated promotion potential 
during  the rating period  in question.  We  believe  it  should be 
noted  that  the  same  issues  raised  in  this  application  were 
investigated by the Inspector General  (IG) and it was determined 
that the complaints concerning wrongdoing by  his commander were 
unsubstantiated and that the actions taken by the commander were 
within  his  authority  and  did  not  violate  Air  Force  or  DoD 
regulations.  Additionally,  the  IG  investigation  indicated  the 
applicant had been informed that his performance did not measure 
up to the commander's  expectations.  In view of the foregoing, it 
does not appear that the applicant was unjustly removed from his 
position of squadron commander and reassigned.  Consequently, we 
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the respective Air 
Force offices 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. 
We 
therefore  find  no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the 
relief sought in this application. 
4.  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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

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 

7 

97- 01693 

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 20 October 1998,  under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 

DD Form 149,  dated 30 May 97,  w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAIP2, dated 23 Jun 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Jul 97. 
Letter from applicant, dated 2 9   Aug 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAIP2, dated 6  Feb 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 1 9  Mar 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Mar 98. 
Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 4 Aug 97  and 30 Mar 98. 
Letter from applicant, dated 27 Apr 98. 

VAN GASBECK 

8 

97- 01693