AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03280 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

JAN  I 5  Jggg 

APPLICANT REOU ESTS THAT 
1. The  Officer  Performance  Report, AF  Form  707A, rendered  for 
the period  16 April  1993  through  15 April  1994, be  amended  in 
Block  I, Item 4, DAFSC, to reflect  \\51J3"; in Block  I, Item  8, 
Organization, Command, Location, to reflect  "2400 RRMS OL-AD04 , 
with duty at 440  Airlift Wing  (ACC), General Mitchell  IAP-ARS 
WI"; and  in Block VI, Rater Overall Assessment, to reflect  the 
rater's grade and branch of service as "Brig Gen, USAFR" . 
2. The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF),  AF  Form  709, 
prepared for the Calendar Year 1994A Central Lieutenant Colonel 
Board be amended in Block I, Item 4, DAFSC, to reflect '5153"  and 
in Block  I, Item 5, Organization, Command, Location, to reflect 
"2400 RRMS OL-ADO4, with duty at 440 Airlift Wing  (ACC) I  General 
Mitchell IAP-ARS WI" . 
3. The  Officer  Selection  Brief,  dated  23 September  1994,  be 
amended to  reflect  the  first entry under Assignment History  as 
DAFSC "5153" , CMD LVL "W/B" , and Organization "Airlift Wing". 
4. He  be  considered  for  promotion  by  Special  Selection  Board 
(SSB) for the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTEN DS THAT: 
The  erroneous  information  in  his  OPR,  PRF,  and  OSB 
mischaracterized his duty  as being  that of  a squadron, rather 
than a wing, Staff Judge Advocate  (SJA).  The incorrect entries 
significantly reduced the perceived importance of his assignment 
-and contributed to his nonselection for promotion in 1994. 
In support of  the  appeal, the  applicant  submits a  copy  of  an 
AFBCMR case on Major T---. 

The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FAC TS: 

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of major. 

The applicant was  considered and  not  selected  for promotion by 
the CY94A, CY95B and CY97B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. 
The  applicant  submitted  a  similar  request  to  the  Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board  (ERAB), which was denied on 31 May 1995. 

A resume of applicant's performance, since 1987, follows: 

PERIOD E NDING 

OVERALL EVALUA TION 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 

Meets Standards (MS) 

7 Oct 
15 Apr 
15 Apr 
15 Apr 
15 Apr 
15 Apr 
15 Apr 
*  15 Apr 
#  15 Apr 
15 Apr 
15 Apr 
25 Sep 

87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
97 
*  Contested report 
board. 
#  Top report reviewed by the CY95B Lt Col board. 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

and top report reviewed by  the CY94A Lt  Col 

AIR FO RCE EVALUAT ION: 
The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed this 
application  and  states  the  documents  provided  do  not  reveal 
technical errors  or a violation  of  regulatory provisions.  It 
appears  this  case  is an  attempt  to  get  an  "easy fixY1 to  the 
applicant's  report without going through the proper  process of 
first  correcting  what  caused  the  perceived  errors,  then 
correcting the OPR.  The unit information on the contested OPR is 
accurate as written, and they recommend the Board deny the appeal 
until such time as the applicant complies with previous guidance 
and is subsequently able to prove errors exist on his OPR. 
AFPC/DPPPEP  states  that  if ,  however,  the  Board  determines  a 
change should be made to his organization data, any change must 
include  the  detachment  nomenclature  110L-AD04.1f Applicant's 
requested nomenclature omits this important fact and  implies he 

2 

was  assigned  to  2400  RRMS. 
This  is  clearly  erroneous  and 
misleading.  As  applicant  contends  llmisleadingll information on 
his OPR contributed to his nonselection, they caution the Board 
to  ensure  any  changes  they  direct  are  also  not  misleading. 
Furthermore, evaluator  identification may  not  reflect  that  two 
general  officers  signed  the  OPR  and  two  general  officer 
signatures  are  strictly  prohibited.  Should  the  Board  make  a 
decision to the contrary, it would be a blatant violation of Air 
Force policy and seriously undermine the integrity of the officer 
evaluation system. 

Additionally, the  applicant's  6  November  1997  letter attaching 
supporting  documentation  to  his  package  clearly  shows  his  OPR 
closing out 15 April 1995 is also in direct violation of policy 
guidance  and  directives. 
They  recommend  the  Board  direct 
correction of the 15 April  1995 OPR to reflect the rater's rank 
as GM-15 in order to bring the report into regulatory compliance. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application and states that based on the findings of AFPC/DPPPEP, 
they recommend the appeal be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

N 

,AP PL I CANT 'S REV1 EW OF AIR FOR C E EVAL U AT10 N: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states the 
following: 

a. AFPC/DPPPEP advisory does not adequately explain why his 
case is so different from Major T---  that he should not receive 
the same sort of relief from the AFBCMR.  In fact, he and Major 
T--- were  so  similarly  situated,  as  active  duty  staff  judge 
advocates, serving  in newly  created  active  duty  positions,  at 
Reserve bases, having most of the same kinds of mistakes made on 
their 1994 OPRS, that for the AFBCMR to deny his petition, after 
granting Major T---, would be blatantly arbitrary and capricious. 
b. Although AFPC/DPPPEP states that AFR  36-10  Ifclearly caps 
the  senior  rater's  rank  at  the  first  general  officer  in  the 
rating  chain,  thereby  prohibiting  multiple  general  officer 
endorsements.Il, they do not cite or quote a specific provision of 
the regulation. 

c. AFPC/DPPPEP  maintains  that  his  DAFSC  should  not  be 
changed unless'he can get the Unit Manning Document (UMD) changed 
to support the DAFSC.  However, they have clearly lost sight of 
one of  the primary purposes of OPRs which  is to give promotion 

3 

selection boards an accurate record of  the duty performance of 
promotion candidates, including the correct level, DAFSC, of the 
duty position held. 

d. AFPC/DPPPEP is wrong when stating there was a detachment 
of the 2400th  RRMS located at Mitchell Field at any time when he 
was  the  SJA there.  The  2400  RRMS  and  its  successor unit, to 
which he was assigned, were located at Robins Air Force Base in 
Georgia, far from Milwaukee, Wisconsin which  is where  Mitchell 
Field is located.  To imply that he was supported by a detachment 
of  the  2 4 0 0   RRMS, that did not  even exist  at  the base were  he 
At  GMIAP-ARS,  he 
performed  his  duty,  is  a  grave  insult. 
performed duty under the direct supervision of the 440th  Airlift 
Wing  commander.  Whatever  local administrative help he  received 
came from the orderly room of the 440th  AW  -  not from the 2400th 
MS or any detachment of it. 

e . AFPC/DPPPEP' s  request that  the AFBCMR  direct  correction 
of  the  OPR,  closing  15  April  1 9 9 5   is  absurd.  The  OPR  was 
accepted and processed by the personnel system without change or 
comment  on  AFMPC I s  part . 
They  cannot  reasonably  claim  the 
requested  changes  to  his  1 9 9 4   OPR  are  inappropriate  when  the 
personnel system accepted his 1 9 9 5   OPR with all the changes on it 
that he wants made to my 1 9 9 4   OPR. 
The applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOAR D CONCLUD ES THAT: 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and  noting  the 
applicant's  contentions, we  believe  the  contested OPR,  PRF  and 
OSB  incorrectly portray  the applicant's  duties as being  at  the 
squadron level, rather than at the wing level.  Several Reserve 
general  officers  have  provided  statements  indicating  that  the 
applicant was performing duties as a wing-level SJA, rather than 
at the squadron level, during the contested period.  In view of 
these  statements,  the  Unit  Mission  Description  for  the  440th 
Airlift  Wing,  in our  view,  would  more  accurately describe  the 
organization in which  he  performed  his  duties.  In accordance 
with the governing directive, the applicant's DAFSC, then should 
have  reflected  "51J3",  which  denotes  assignment  to  wing-level 
duty.  Furthermore, since the  applicant actually performed  his 
duties in a different organization than the one  indicated by  a 
translation of  the  Personnel Accounting  Symbol  (PAS) code, the 
phrase, 'with  duty at 440  Airlift Wing  (ACC), General Mitchell 

4 

IAP-ARS  WI",  should  have  been  included  in  the  Organization, 
Command, Location  sections on  both  the  OPR  and  PRF.  While  it 
cannot  be  conclusively determined  whether  or  not  these  errors 
were the  sole reason for applicant Is  nonselection for promotion 
by the board in question, we do believe that it served to deprive 
him of fair and equitable consideration.  Therefore, we recommend 
his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for 
the CY94A board 

THE BOARD RECOMM ENDS THA T: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a. The Officer  Performance Report, AF  Form  707A, rendered 
for the period 16 April 1993 through 15 April 1994, be amended in 
Block  I, Item 4, DAFSC, to reflect  \\5153"; in Block  I, Item 8, 
Organization, Command, Location, to reflect  "2400 RRMS OL-ADO4, 
with duty at 440  Airlift Wing  (ACC), General Mitchell  IAP-ARS 
WI"; and  in Block VI, Rater Overall Assessment, to reflect the 
rater's grade and branch of service as "Brig Gen, USAFR". 

b. The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF) ,  AF  Form  709, 
prepared for the Calendar Year 1994A Central Lieutenant Colonel 
Board be amended in Block I, Item 4, DAFSC, to reflect '5153"  and 
in Block  I, Item 5, Organization, Command, Location, to reflect 
''2400  RRMS OL-ADO4, with duty at 440 Airlift Wing  (ACC) , General 
Mitchell IAP-ARS WI" . 
It is further recommended that his corrected record, to include 
an  Officer  Selection  Brief  reflecting  the  first  entry  under 
Assignment  History  as  DAFSC  "5153",  CMD  LVL  \\W/B", and 
Organization  "Airlift Wing", be  considered for promotion to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the 
Calendar Year 199411 Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and for any 
subsequent boards for which the corrected OPR, closing 15 April 
1994, was not a matter of record. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 29 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S.  Perlstein, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote) 

All members voted  to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 97, w/atchs. 

5 

Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 23 Mar 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 31 Mar 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Jun 98. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 98, w/atchs. 

d+q& VAUG 
Panel Chair 

E.  CHLUNZ 

6 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03280 

JAN 

I  5  I999 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

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: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
correct6d to show that: 

a.  The Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 

16 April 1993 through 15 April 1994, be amended in Block I, Item 4, DAFSC, to reflect “51 53”; 
in Block I, Item 8, Organization, Command, Location, to reflect “2400 RRMS OL-AD04, with 
duty at 440 Airlift Wing (ACC), General Mitchell IAP-ARS W”; and in Block VI, Rater Overall 
Assessment, to reflect the rater’s grade and branch of service as “Brig Gen, USAFR”. 

b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for 
the Calendar Year 1994A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board be amended in Block I, Item 4, 
DAFSC, to reflect “5 153” and in Block I, Item 5, Organization, Command, Location, to reflect 
“2400 RRMS OL-ADO4, with duty at 440 Airlift Wing (ACC), General Mitchell IAP-ARS WI”. 

It is further directed that his corrected record, to include an Officer Selection Brief 

reflecting the first entry under Assignment History as DAFSC “5 1 J3”, CMD LVL “W/B”, and 
Organization “Airlift Wing”, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a 
Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1994A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and for 
any subsequent boards for which the corrected OPR, closing 15 April 1994, was not a matter of 
record. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency