. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 97-0298 1 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

2 

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 116), it is directed that: 

ords of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
e corrected to show that the Com$any Grade Offc 
. rendered  for the  period  16 June  1990 through  1 

cokected in  Section VI (Rater ’Overall Assessmetit)  and  Section VI1  (Additha1 Raier Overall 
Assessment)  by  adding  the  statement:  “He  was selected  for  the  coveted  Constant  Carrot 
Award.” 

It  is  further  directed  that  his  corrected  record  be  considered  by  Special  Selection  Board 

(SSB) for the Calendar Year  1997C Central Major Selection Board. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: U 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02981 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

AUG  2 7  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

'I 

His  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) rendered  for  the  period 
16 Jun 90 through 1 May 91 be declared void and replaced with a 
revised report covering the same period. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He received the Constant Carrot Award which is given to only one 
pilot in the wing and the receiver is given his or her choice of 
aircraft.  It is awarded for exceptional performance and skill in 
the  recipient's  aircraft  and  as  recognition  and  incentive  for 
continued excellence.  To exclude this  important  fact  from his 
records neglects  a  significant accomplishment that  could be  an 
important  factor in the  future and adversely affect his  career 
progression. 

In support of  his appeal, the applicant provided  a  copy of  the 
contested  report, a  revised version of  the  OPR, and  statements 
from the rater and additional rater of the report in question. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant's  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 27 May 87.  He is currently serving on active duty in 
the grade of captain, effective, and with a date of rank  (DOR) of 
27 May 91. 

AFBCMR 97-0298 I 

Applicant‘s OPR profile since 1989 follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

19 May 89 
25 Dec 89 
15 Jun 90 
*  1 May 91 
13 Jun 92 
13 Jun 93 
10 Dec 93 
13 Jun 94 
24 Apr 95 
14 Mar 96 
14 Mar 97 

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

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

Education/Training Report  (TR) 

*  Contested report. 

‘I 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION : 
The  Chief,  Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of  record and  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 
report-not  only  for support, but  for clarification/explanation. 
In fact, the revised version of  the contested report was signed 
by  an  individual  from  outside  the  applicant‘s original  rating 
chain.  While the applicant contends that he was unable to locate 
the reviewer from the original report and further alleges that he 
(reviewer) may  have been  removed  from the Air  Force  for cause, 
according  to AFR  31-11, paragraph A2-a  and A2-b, the applicant 
has  the  sole  responsibility  for  gathering  documentation  to 
support his allegations.  Further, he may enlist the aid of the 
Air Force Worldwide Locator to find individuals who have retired 
or are no longer serving on active duty. 

DPPPA  notes  that  the  applicant’s replacement  report  not  only 
includes  a  statement  concerning  his  receipt  of  the  “Constant 
Carrot  Award”  (per his  request), but  contains  statements  from 
both  evaluators  recommending  him  for  attendance  to  Squadron 
Officer School  (SOS)  in residence.  It is apparent the evaluators 
from  the  report  have  attempted  to  inflate  their  original 
assessment  of  the  applicant  in  order  to  accommodate  their 
addition  of  a  professional  military  school  recommendation  by 
adding  and/or  deleting  comments  presently  on  the  contested 
report.  Evaluation reports receive exhaustive reviews prior  to 
becoming a matter of record and any report can be rewritten to be 
more  hard  hitting,  to  provide  embellishments, or  enhance  the 

AFBCMR 97-0298 I 

ratee's promotion potential but the time to do that is before the 
report becomes a matter of record.  None of the supporters of the 
applicant's appeal explain how they were hindered from rendering 
a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  the  applicant's  performance 
prior  to  the  report  being  a  matter  of  record.  The  appeals 
process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances for 
promotion.  As such, DPPPA is not convinced the contested report 
is not accurate as written and does not support the request for 
removal and replacement. 

DPPPA further indicates that, the contested OPR has been a matter 
of record for six years and the test to be applied is not merely 
whether  the  applicant discovered  the  error  within  three years, 
but  whether,  through  due  diligence,  he  could  or  should  have 
discovered  the  error ( s )  . 
Clearly,  the  alleged  error ( s )   upon 
which he  relies has/have been discoverable since publication of 
the  OPR  in  question. 
of  Defense  (DOD) 
special  selection  board  shall 
Directive  1320.11  states,  'A 
not . . .  consider any officer who might, by maintaining  reasonably 
careful records, have discovered and taken steps to correct that 
error or omission on which the original board based its decision 
against promotion."  Therefore, DPPPA  sees no valid  reason  to 
waive  the  statute of  limitations  and  consider  the  applicant's 
requests.  They assert the applicant's  OPR  was  accomplished  in 
direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time the 
report  was  rendered. 
Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  they 
recommend denial. 

Further,  Departm-t 

DPPPA  further  points  out  that  the  applicant  failed  to 
reaccomplish the proposed  replacement report on the  appropriate 
version of  the AF  Form  707B,  Company Grade  Officer Performance 
Report.  If the Board decides to replace the OPR, the applicant 
should reaccomplish the replacement report on the Aug 88 version 
of the AF Form 707B which was in effect at the time the OPR was 
originally rendered on 1 May 91. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
2 Dec 97 for review and response.  As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

3 

0 

AFBCMR 97-0298 I 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  are  not  sufficiently 
persuaded that the contested report should be  declared void  and 
replaced with a  reaccomplished report covering the  same period. 
The statements from the rater and additional rater provided  for 
our  review are  not  sufficiently persuasive  to  demonstrate that 
the report in question is flawed or that the assessments of  the 
applicant’s performance  were  erroneous  at  the  time  they  were 
rendered.  After  considering all  the  evidence, we  believe  that 
the ratings on the report were honest assessments of applicant’s 
performance at the time the report was prepared.  In view of the 
foregoing, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

.? 

4.  Notwithstanding the above, after noting the  statements from 
the  rater  and  additional rater of  the  report  in question, who 
indicate that the accomplishment of the Constant Carrot Award was 
an oversight and not known to them until recently, a majority of 
the  Board  is sufficiently persuaded that  the  award  in question 
should  be  reflected  on  applicant’s  OPR  closing  1 May  91. 
Therefore, a majority of the Board concludes that Constant Carrot 
Award should be added to the OPR  as indicated below and that his 
corrected record be considered by an SSB. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Company 
Grade  Officer  Performance Report  (OPR), AF  Form  707B, rendered 
for the period  16 June 1990 through 1 May  1991, be  corrected in 
Section VI  (Rater Overall Assessment) and Section VI1  (Additional 
Rater  Overall  Assessment)  by  adding  the  statement: 
“He  was 
selected for the coveted Constant Carrot Award.“ 

It is further recommended that his corrected record be considered 
by  SSB  for  the  Calendar  Year  1997C  (CY97C)  Central  Major 
Selection Board. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 4 August  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

AFBCMR 97-0298 I 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote) 

By  a majority vote, the Board voted  to correct the records, as 
recommended.  Mr. Wheeler voted  to deny applicant' s request but 
does  not  desire  to  submit  a  minority  report.  The  following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 23 Oct 97,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Nov 9 7 .  
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2  Dec 9 7 .  

~ T H A  MAUST/ 
Panel Chair 

5 

0 

- 

r 

5 

- - L  

DEPARTMENT  OF T H E  AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L   C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  B A S E  TEXAS 

\ 

1 7  NOV  m7 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4710 

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action.  Applicant requests his officer performAce report (OPR) that closed 
out 1 May 91 be replaced with a revised version of the report.  Although not specifidly 
requested, we assume the applicant would like Specid Selection Board (SSB) consideration by 
the CY97C (16 Jun 97) (P0497C) central major promotion board below-the-promotion zone 
@ p a  

Basis for Request.  Applicant would like to include his receipt of the "Constant Carrot 

Award" in the contested OPR. He contends this exclusion was an oversight that could adversely 
affect his career progression. 

Recommendation.  Time bar.  If the AFBCMR considers, then we recommend denial due 
to lack of merit.  By law, a claim must be filed within three years of the date of discovery of the 
alleged error or injustice (10 U.S.C.  1552fbI). It is obvious that the errors claimed here were 
discoverable at the time they occurred.  The applicant provided nothing to convince us that the 
errors were not discoverable until  15 Jan 96, nor has he offered a concrete explanation for filing 
late.  While we would normally recommend the application be denied as untimely, we are aware 
that the AFBCMR has determined it must adhere to the decision in the case of Detweiler v. Pena, 
38F.3d591 @.C. Cir 1994)--which prevents application of the statute's  time bar ifthe applicant 
has filed within three years of separation or retirement. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  Application is not timely. Applicant did not submit a similar appeal under AFR 3 1- 

11, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. We did not return the application 
because the applicant failed to provide support from the reviewer of the contested report. 
Applicant has not yet been considered in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) for promotion to the grade of 
major. 

b.  AFR 36-10, The OfFcer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the governing directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits letters from the rater and additional 

rater of the contested report, a copy of the existing report, and a copy of the revised version of 
the report. 

.~ 

I 

,  * - .  

d.  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 report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. In this 
instance, the applicant failed to provide information from the reviewer of the contested report.  In 
fact, the revised version of the contested report was signed by an individual from outside the 
applicant’s original rating chain.  The applicant contends he was unable to locate the reviewer 
from the original report and fbrther alleges he may have been removed from the Air Force for 
cause.  According to AFR 3 1-1 1 , para A2-a and A2-by the applicant has the sole responsibility for 
gathering documentation to support his allegations.  Further, he may enlist the aid of the Air 
Force Worldwide Locator to find individuals who have retired or are no longer serving on active 
duty.  Their address is HQ AFPCMSIMDL, 550 C Street West, Suite 50, Randolph AFB TX 
78150-4752. 

e. We note the applicant’s replacement report not only includes a statement 

concerning his receipt of the “Constant Carrot Award” (per his request), but contains statements 
from both evaluators recommending him for attendance to Squadron Officer School (SOS) in 
residence.  It is apparent the evaluators from the report have attempted to inflate their original 
assessment of the applicant in order to accommodate their addition of a professional military 
school recommendation by adding and/or deleting comments presently on the contested report. 

‘I 

E  Evaluation reports receive exhaustive reviiws prior to becoming a matter of 

record.  Any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or 
enhance the rake’s promotion potential. But the time to do that is before the report becomes a 
matter of record.  None of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were 
hindered from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the 
report being made a matter of record.  The appeals process does not exist to recreate history or 
enhance chances for promotion.  As such, we are not convinced the contested report is not 
accurate as written and do not support the request for removal and replacement. 

g.  The applicant failed to reaccomplish the proposed replacement report on the 
appropriate version of the AF Form 707B, Company Grade Officer Performance Report.  Ifthe 
board decides to replace the OPR, the applicant phould reaccomplish the replacement report on 
the Aug 88 version of the AF Form 707B which was in effect at the time the OPR was onginaIly 
rendered 1 May 9 I.. 

h.  The contested OPR has been a matter of record for six years.  The test to be 
applied is not merely whether the applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether 
through due diligence, he could or should have discovered the error(s) (see OpJAGAF 1988/56, 
28 Sep 88, and the cases cited therein).  Clearly, the alleged error(s) upon which he relies 
hadhave been discoverable since publication of the OPR in question.  Further, DoD Directive 
1320.1 1 states, “A special selection board shall not.. .consider any officer who might, by 
maintaining reasonably carehl records, have discovered and taken steps to correct that error or 
omission on which the original board based its decision against promotion.”  Therefore, we see no 
valid reason to waive the statute of limitations and consider the applicant’s requests.  We assert 

the applicant’s OPR was accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the 
time the report was rendered.  We, therefore, conclude SSB consideration is unwarranted. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

vdlkuu!i’xu;;e% 
UARIANNE STERLING, Lt  ol, USAF 
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

‘I