AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02374 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

DEC  1  4 1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF) prepared  for  the 
Calendar Year 1992A  (CY92A) Colonel Selection Board be  declared 
void. 

2.  His nonselection by the CY92A Col Board be set aside. 
3 .   He  be  considered  for  promotion  by  Special Selection  Board 
(SSB) using the following procedures: 

a. Rather than using \\benchmarkN records, the records to be 
reviewed would consist of his record plus those of all the other 
in the promotion zone"  (IPZ) eligibles whose PRFs for the CY92A 
Col Board were prepared by Major General 0---. 

b. All of the records be reviewed by a single panel. 
c. All the records be reviewed with the PRFs removed. 
d. If his record scores higher than any of the records of 
officers previously selected by  the CY92A C o l   Board, he  replace 
the officers' records he outscored in the order of merit on the 
original selection list and be considered a selectee. 

PPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He was nonselected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the 
CY92A Col Board as a direct result of General 0---'s failure to 
follow  the  regulation  in  the  preparation  of  PRFs  and  the 
subsequent impact this failure had on the selection process. 
The  applicant  states  the  regulation  governing  PRF  preparation 
prohibits  senior  raters  from  convening  boards  or  panels  of 
officers  to  score  records  and  generate  a  priority  list  of 
eligible officers.  However, contrary to the regulation, Gen 0--- 
brought his wing, group and center commanders together to review 
records  of  performance  and  advise  him  on  the  awarding  of 
promotion recommendations.  In addition, the senior rater did not 
have knowledge of his most recent performance. 

The  applicant notes that  in an effort  to remedy the  injustice 
caused by Gen 0---, AF/DP and AF/IN developed a process to review 
the PRFs awarded by Gen 0---. While this attempt to correct the 
injustice was commendable ,  the process they used was arbitrary, 
incomplete, and inconsistent with the governing regulation. 
The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

TATEMENT OF F ACTS : 
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel. 
The  applicant  received  a  "Promote"  recommendation  on  the  PRF 
prepared for the CY92A Col Board. 
The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the 
grade of colonel by the CY92A, CY93A, CY94A, CY95B, and CY96B Col 
Boards. 
On  13  December 1993, the  applicant  filed an  Inspector General 
(IG) complaint alleging that  the  former Air  Force  Intelligence 
Command Commander (AFIC/CC) convened a board to 'rack  and stack" 
officers eligible for promotion to be considered by the CY92A Col 
Board  and  then  used  the  priority  list  to  award  "Definitely 
Promote  (DP) "  recommendations  in  violation  of  the  governing 
regulation. 
On 31 October 1994, the Secretary of the Air Force, Office of the 
Inspector General, Senior Officer Inquiries (SAF/IGQ) advised the 
applicant  that  on  25  February  1994, the AFIC/IG  and Air  Force 
Tactical  Applications  Center  Inspector  General  (AFTAC/IG) 
investigated  his 
found  his  allegation 
substantiated.  As  a result of  the  IG  findings, a  "designated 
senior  raterN was  tasked  to  review  all  PRFs  prepared  by  the 
AFIC/CC  to  determine  if  these  individuals'  PRFs  warranted 
upgrading to a DP recommendation. 
The Air  Intelligence Agency  completed a review of  "flawed" 
procedures  for CY92  and  CY93  Col  Boards where  AFIC/CC  was 
senior  rater . 
The  "designated  senior  raters"  reviewed 
records  and  changed  the  rating  and/or  narrative  on 
individuals. 
A resume of applicant's performance, since 1989, follows: 

complaint  and 

PRF 
the 
366 
27 

PERIOD ENDING 

6 Jun 89 
6 Jun 90 
*  6  Jun 91 

O V E N  L EVALUATION 
Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 

2 

q 7 0 A 3 7 Y  

6 Jun 92 
12 May 93 
11 Apr 94 
11 Apr 95 
11 Apr 96 
11 Apr 97 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
*  Top report reviewed by the CY92A Col Board. 

TR FORCE E VALUATIO N: 

The  AF  Evaluations Board  Recorder, AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed  this 
application and states that a PRF is considered to be an accurate 
assessment  of  an  officer s  performance  when  rendered. 
The 
applicant‘s  record  of  performance  (ROP) ,  as  it  would  have 
appeared to the original senior rater, was made available to the 
“designated“ senior rater to determine whether or not the PRF was 
accurate.  Despite any  improprieties by  the  senior rater,  the 
review  of  the  PRF  shows  that  it  was  technically  accurate  and 
found  to  be  within  the  regulatory  guidelines of  the  governing 
regulation. 
The  applicant  is  correct  that  the  governing 
regulation  has  no  provisions  for  cases  of  senior  rater 
improprieties;  however,  when  the  governing  regulation  was 
written, the creators of the Officer Evaluation System  (OES)  did 
not  foresee  such problems  arising  in  the  future  and  thus,  no 
provisions were  included.  When  the problem  did arise, the Air 
Force  was  quick  to  react  to  insure  that  a  fair and  equitable 
process  was  created  to  correct  any  wrongs  that  may  have  been 
committed  by  senior  raters.  The  approved  procedures  were  not 
incomplete  and  were  in  no  way  in  violation  of  the  governing 
regulation.  Therefore, they  recommend  the  original  PRF  stand 
since  the  wording  in  Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendation, 
supports the overall recommendation found in Section IX. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition Programs Division, 
AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed  this  application  and  notes  that  the 
applicant‘s allegation of improprieties by the senior rater were 
investigated by  SAF/IGQ  and  found  to  be  substantiated.  As  a 
result, a “designated senior raterN was tasked to review all PRFs 
prepared  by  the  original  senior  rater  to  determine  if  these 
individuals‘  PRFs  warranted  upgrading  to  “definitely  promote 
Those officers who did not  receive a DP recommendation 
(DP) 
were advised by the Major Air Command  (MAJCOM) that there would 
not  be  any  change  to  their  PRFs  as  they  were  accurate  as 
rendered.  This  is what  happened  in the applicant’s situation. 
The applicant does not have a reaccomplished DP PRF for the CY92A 
Col  Board  and  does  not  have  the  support  from  the  appropriate 
chain of command for reconsideration.  They defer to AFPC/DPPPEB 
advisory for the remainder of the issues relating to the PRF. 

. ‘ I  

3 

AFPC/DPPP,  states  that  applicant  has  been  afforded  the  same 
consideration  as  every  other  officer  whose  PRF  received  an 
independent review based on substantiated impropriety in the PRF 
process.  While  the  applicant  has  his  own  opinions on how  he 
would  like SSBs to be  conducted, the  fact is that to treat him 
differently  would  not  be  fair  to  other  officers  in  the  same 
situation, nor is it feasible to let each individual dictate the 
condition under which SSBs  should be conducted.  Therefore, they 
recommend the application be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D . 
The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA,  reviewed this application 
and  states  that  applicant's  underlying  complaint  that  his 
original senior rater held 'mini-boards''  prior to the Management 
Level  Review  Board  (MLRB)  was  remedied  by  the  use  of  a 
"designated  senior  raterN  to  review  the  impropriety  of  the 
promotion  recommendations  of  those  being  considered  for 
promotion.  As AFPC/DPPPEB points out in their advisory, the use 
of a "designated senior rater", while not expressly provided in 
the governing regulation, certainly was not inconsistent with the 
regulation, nor was it arbitrary or incomplete.  In fact, the use 
of  a  "designated senior rater" to evaluate applicant's  ROP and 
compare it to his PRF served to insure the PRF was accurate.  In 
addition, given the date of the selection board, it is apparent 
the  applicant's  next  OPR, which would  have  closed  out  in June 
1992, would  not  have  been  a  part  of  his  ROP  considered  in 
formulating the PRF considered by board.  Even if his next OPR 
could, or should, have been part of his ROP, the fact that it was 
not included would not necessarily mean he would be entitled to 
any relief, since he has not proven a causal connection between 
the  alleged  error  and  the  promotion  passover. 
Since  the 
applicant has failed to establish there was any error in his ROP 
which would  have  contributed to an inaccurate PRF, they do not 
believe  he  is entitled  to  SSB  consideration.  However,  if  the 
Board  were  to  find  some basis  to  recommend  SSB  consideration, 
they believe any SSB should be  conducted pursuant to applicable 
law and regulation. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit E . 

APPLICANT'S REVUW  OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
he disagrees with AFPC/DPPPEB's  contention that his PRF and its 
content  can  be  based  solely  upon  his  ROP. 
In  addition  to 
requiring  the  senior  rater  to  review  his  ROP,  the  governing 
regulation states that senior raters will be knowledgeable of the 
ratee's  most  recent performance.  He believes the Air Force was 

4 

so certain that it wanted  its senior raters to be knowledgeable 
of  a ratee's  most  recent performance that when A F I - 3 6 - 2 4 0 2   was 
published  it  changed  the  paragraph's  wording  to  'must  be 
knowledgeable."  While  he  can  understand  that  the  need  for a 
"designated senior rater" may not have been anticipated when the 
promotion recommendation process was created in 1988, it  is now 
almost 10 years later and the process has still not been formally 
documented.  By AFPC's  own admission, the sole function of  the 
"designated senior rater"  is to determine whether  an officer' s 
PRF  warrants upgrading to a DP, the implication being  that  the 
narrative-'portion of  the  PRF  is  irrelevant  when  it  comes  to 
promotion consideration.  Yet, AFPC repeatedly reminds Air Force 
"promot e" 
officers  that  a  significant  percentage  of 
recommendations are selected by promotion boards.  Certainly the 
quality and accuracy of the narrative portion of a "promote" PRF, 
as well as any differentiation provided in the narrative, plays a 
significant role in the promotion board's  deliberation.  While it 
is not his intent to request any action which is contrary to law, 
considering the circumstances surrounding his case and the impact 
the missing PRF would have on the selection board deliberations, 
he  believes  the  alternative to  the  standard  SSB process  would 
better correct the injustice he suffered. 
The applicant's  complete response, with attachment, is attached 
at Exhibit G. 

CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
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, a majority of the Board agrees with 
the  opinions  and  recommendations of  the  Air  Force  and  adopts 
their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  the  conclusion  that  the 
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, a majority 
of the Board finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

RECOMMENDATION OF TH E BOARD: 
A  majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

~~ 

5 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 15 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair 
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. , Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote) 

By  majority  vote,  the  Board  recommended 
application.  Mr. Peterson recommended favorable 
the  applicant's  requests  that  the  CY92A  PRF 
nonselection  by  the  CY92A  board  be  set  asi 
considered for promotion by SSB for the CY92A boa 
does  not  wish  to  submit  a  minority  report. 
documentary evidence was considered: 

denial  of  the 
consideration of 
be  voided,  his 
de,  and  he  be 
rd.  However, he 
The  following 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 
F. 
G. 

DD Form  149, dated 5 Aug 97, w/atchs. 
Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated.,22 Aug 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 17 Sep 97. 
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 31 Oct 97. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Nov 97. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Dec 97. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chair 

6