AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02342 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

DEC  t  0 '!398 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
The Officer Performance Report  (OPR) closing 23 May 1993 be removed 
from his records and replaced with a reaccomplished report and that 
he  be  considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  Special 
Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  (CY)  1996A  Central- 
Major Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Information was  inadvertently  omitted  from  the  contested  report. 
Specifically,  his  accomplishments  at  his  previous  unit,  his 
significant  training  accomplishments, and  an  intermediate  service 
school  (ISS) recommendation  by  the  additional  rater  were  absent 
from  the  report. 
Collec.tively,  these  errors  and  omissions, 
acknowledged by his rating chain and  other witnesses, indicate this 
OPR  is not  a  fair and  accurate assessment of  his  accomplishments 
during  the  contested  rating period,  nor  a  complete record  of  his 
potential for advancement. 

In  support  of  his  request,  appljxant  provided  his  expanded 
comments,  copies  Of  the  contested  report  and  a  reaccomplished 
report, and copies of his appeals submitted under the provisions of 
AFR 31-11, which included supporting statements from the members of 
his rating chain.  (Exhibit A )  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
On  17 December 1 9 8 5 ,   applicant was appointed as second lieutenant, 
Reserve of the Air Force.  He was ordered to extended active duty 
on that same date.  He has served on continuous active duty and was 
integrated into the Regular component on 25 September 1 9 8 6 .   He is 
currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, with a date 
of rank and effective date of  1 October 1 9 9 7 .  

A resume of applicant's OERS/OPRS follows: 

PERIOD CLOSING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

1 8   Jul 86 
1 8   Jan 8 7  
1 8   Jul 87 
1 8   Jan 88 
1 7   Jun 88 
28  ,Oct 88 
28  Sep 89 
1 0   Jul 90 
10 Jul 9 1  
10 Jul 92 
21 Feb 92 
*  23 May 93 
23  May 94 
23  May 95 
6 Sep 96 
28  Feb 97 

Education/Training Report  (TR) 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
Meets Standards (MS) 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
TR 
MS 
MS 
MS 
TR 
MS 

*  Contested report.  Similar appeals submitted under the provisions 
of AFI  3 6 - 2 4 0 1   (formerly AFR  3 1 - 1 1 )   were denied by  the Evaluation 
Report  Appeal  Board  on  24  September  1996  and  30  June  1997, 
respectively. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application 
and recommended denial based on the information provided. 

DPPPA  noted  the  statements  provided  by  the  evaluators  of  the 
contested report.  Regarding the claim  that  an  ISS recommendation 
was not  allowed by  the command when the applicant's report closed 
out, no evidence has been presented to this effect.  The evaluators 
state it was a  "verbal" policy.  Further, the rater recommends the 
applicant for professional military education  (PME) in his section 
of  the  contested  report,  which  contradicts  the  llpolicyll the 
evaluators say existed.  Their contention that a recommendation f o r  
PME  was  allowed,  but  a  recommendation  for  ISS  was  not,  is  not 
plausible. 
The rater stated his PME recommendation was  intentionally weakened 
at  higher  headquarters  (indicating conscious  thought), while  the 
additional rater  states the  rater's PME  recommendation must  have 
"slipped  by. 'I 
A  sentence  on  an  OPR  cannot  be  intentionally 
prohibited and an administrative oversight at the same time.  DPPPA 
believes  this  issue  is  without  merit  and  they  do  not  recommend 
replacement  of  the  contested  OPR  in  relation  to  the  PME 
recommendation. 

2 

AFBCMR  97-02342 

DPPPA  did  not  concur  with  applicant's  request  to  rewrite  the 
contested report to include different duty information.  Nowhere in 
this  appeal  does  the  applicant  or  his  evaluators  cite  factual 
error.  The willingness of evaluators to rewrite an OPR is not, by 
itself, a valid reason to do so.  The original OPR made use of all' 
available space to document what the evaluators determined were the 
applicant's major  accomplishments for  the  reporting period.  Any 
OPR  can  be  rewritten  to  be  stronger  and  more  hard  hitting  ad 
infinitum.  The appeals process does not exist t.0 replace accurate 
reports. 
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C .  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant stated a key issue is whether improper command policy had 
been issued by his higher headquarters at the time or if his entire 
direct chain of command and OPR processing personnel misunderstood 
command  policy,  thus  resulting  in  an  incomplete  OPR  lacking  a 
definitive ISS endorsement by both the rater and additional rater. 
He  believes he  has  clearly shown in his  supporting documentation 
that  incorrect  guidance  had  been  issued  by  their  higher 
headquarters  either  verbally, unofficially  or  otherwise  and  that 
his unit and supervisory chain were  following guidance which later 
turned out to be incorrect. 

During  the  initial  period  covered  by  the  contested  OPR,  he  was 
stationed in Germany under a different rater and additional rater. 
His  rater and  additional rater both  document  that  they  failed  to 
obtain, consider and  include his performance during the portion of 
the  reporting  period  when  he  was  outside  their  supervision  in 
Germany.  They  have  requested,  and  should  now  be  permitted,  to 
complete  his  OPR  with  performance  information  f o r   the  entire 
period. 

His evaluators all  state that  they  incorrectly failed to document 
his  completion of  formal training during the  reporting period  and 
request  the  opportunity  to  complete  his  record  by  adding  this 
information. 
Applicant's response is at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The applicant has  exhausted all  remedies provided by  existing 
law or regulations. 
2.  The  application  was  not  timely  filed; however,  it  is  in  t h e  
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3 

AFBCMR  97-02342 

. 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  We have 
noted applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case, including the  supporting  statements from  the  evaluators on 
the contested report.  While supportive of the applicant I  s appeal , - 
the statements from the evaluators do not, in our opinion, support 
a  finding  that  the  contested  report  is  in  error  or  unjust  as 
rendered, only that  it  could  have been written differently.  Nor 
were we persuaded by the evidence provided that the evaluators were 
prohibited from including a recommendation for Intermediate Service 
School  (ISS) on the  report.  Based  on  the  foregoing, and  in the 
absence  of  persuasive  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. 

The  following members of  the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  18  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3  : 

Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 
Mr. John T. Dorsett, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 18 Aug 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 2   Sep 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Oct 97. 

&G!LJ Ek???.&/M* 

CHARLES E. BENNETT 
Panel Chair 

- 

4 

AFBCMR  97-02342