IN THE MATTER  OF: 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR  FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
DOCKET  NUMBER:  97-03473 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

I 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
Comments be added  to Sections VI  (Rater Overall Assessment) and  VI1 
(Additional Rater  Overall  Assessment)  on  t h e   Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR)  closing  1  January  1993,  and  that  he  be  g i v e n  
consideration for promotion  to the  grade  of  lieutenant colonel by 
Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) for  the  Calendar  Year  1997  (CY97C) 
lieutenant colonel board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS  THAT: 
T h e   omission of  crucial comments concerning attending Intermediate 
Service  School  in residence and  follow-on j o b   assignment from the 
contested OPR  significantly contributed  to- his  being  passed  over 
for promotion  to lieutenant colonel by the CY97C board. 
for 
Other  areas  that  may  have  contributed  to  his  nonselection 
promotion  to  t h e   grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  are: 
there 
are 
duplicate  and  multiple  entries  for  some  less  significant 
j o b  
titles, however, commander appears  only once.even though he had 
two 
was 
OPRs  as  a  squadron  commander; although his official job  title 
Vehicle Operations Officer, he  was Chief of Vehicle Operations; 
his 
assignment history did not  show the job title of  C h i e f ,   Plans 
and 
he 
Programs after he  cross-trained from the missile  career field; 
had 
has  only  one  M e r i t o r i o u s   Service  Medal  (MSM), even  though  h e  
not 
been recommended for M S M s   f o u r   times; his ROTC duty history was 
shown on three  consecutive Officer Pre-Selection Briefs and had  to 
be  put  on a t   his insistence each  year; the  length of his  t o u r s   at 
Kansas  and  Alaska  may  have  given  the  appearance of  homesteading; 
and t h e   indorsement levels on some of his e a r l i e r   OPRs as  a missile 
officer were at the wing l e v e l .  
In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  expanded 
comments;  a  copy  of  the  contested  OPR  and  Performance  Feedback 
Worksheet  prepared d u r i n g   the  contested rating period,  as well  as 
statements  from  the  rater  and  additional  rater  of  the  contested 
report, his former wing commander and  his current senior r a t e r ;   and 
copies of an OPR closing 3 February 1988 and the O f f i c e r   Selection 
Brief  ( 0 % )   reviewed by t h e   CY97C  Lt  Colonel Board. 

(Exhibit A) 

. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Information extracted  from the Personnel  Data  System  (PDS)  reflects 
that  applicant  was  appointed  as  second  lieutenant,  Reserve  of  the 
Air  Force,  on  2 2   December  1981.  He was  ordered  to extended active 
d u t y   on  that  same  date.  He  has  served  on  continuous  active d u t y  
and was  integrated  into  the  Regular  component  on  5  J u l y   1 9 8 5 .  
He 
was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of major,  w i t h   a  date  of 
rank and e f f e c t i v e   date of 1 March  1994. 
A  resume of applicant’s  OERs/OPRs follows: 

PERIOD  CLOSING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

26 A p r   82 
28  Feb 83 
4  Jan 8 4  
10 Nov  8 4  
21 Jun 8 5  
31 J u l   8 6  
3  Feb  87 
3  Feb  8 8  
13 May  8 8  
10 Sep  8 8  
10 Sep 8 9  
15 J a n   90 
19 Jul 9 0  
19 Jul 91 
31 May  92 
1  Jan  93 
11 May  93 
11 May  9 4  
11 May  95 
11 May  96 
4  A p r   97 
11 May  97 

* 

# 

( TR) 

Education /Tra ining Report 
1-1-1 (W/LOE) 
1-1-1 (w/LOE) 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1  (W/LOE) 
TR  (w/LOEs) 
1-1-1 
TR 
Meets  Standards  (MS) 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
TR 
MS 

*  Contested  report. 
#  -  Top  report  in  f i l e  
promotion by the CY97C 
1 9 9 7 .  

when he  was  considered  and n o t   selected  for 
Lt  Colonel  Board,  which  convened  on  21 J u l y  

A I R   FORCE  EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPP, 
application  and  recommended  d e n i a l .  
follow . 
Noting  the statements provided  by the r a t e r   and additional rater on 
the  OPR  closing  1  J a n u a r y   1993,  DPPP  stated  that  e v a l u a t i o n s  

reviewed  this 
Their  comments,  in  part, 

2 

AFBCMR  97 - 03473 

. 

I 

receive  exhaustive  reviews  prior  to  becoming  a  matter  of  record. 
Any  report  can  be  rewritten  to  be  more  hard  hitting,  to  provide 
embellishments,  or  enhance  the  ratee's  promotion  potential.  But 
the  time  to  do  that  is  before  the  report  becomes  a  matter  of 
Neither  of  the  supporters  of  the  applicant's  appeal 
record. 
explain  how  they were  hindered  from rendering a  fair and  accurate 
assessment of t h e   applicant's  performance prior  to the report being 
T h e   appeals  process  does  not  exist  to 
made  a  matter  of  Kecol-d. 
recreate history or enhance chances for promotion.  As  such, DPPP 
is  not  convinced  the  contested  report  is  not  accurate  a s   written 
and does  not  support the  request to add  statements  in Sections  VI 
and  VII. 
DPPP noted that the OPR closing 3  February 1988 has been a matter 
of record for nine plus y e a r s .   Although the applicant contends his 
duty title should be  "Chief,  Plans  and  Programs," he  has  failed to 
provide any support from those who  rendered t h e   report. 
With  regard  to  the  other  issues  applicant  contends  may  have 
attributed to h i s   nonselection, DPPP stated the time to bring these 
issues to  the  board's  attention  is  before  the  promotion board  by 
letter  to  the  board  president,  not  after.  Each  eligible officer 
considered by  the  CY97C  board  received  detailed  instructions  for 
review of their preselection briefs and associated records some 90 
days  prior  to  the  board. 
It  was  applicant's  responsibility  to 
notify the board of any  i s s u e s   that he believed t o   be  important t o  
his promotion consideration.  However, DPPP did n o t   find any record 
the  applicant wrote  s u c h   a  letter  to  the  board  president.  DPPP, 
applicant  exercised  reasonable 
t h e r e f o r e ,  
diligence  to  ensure his  records were  accurate  prior  to  the board 
and  strongly  recommends  denying  the  applicant's  request  for  SSB 
consideration on these issue. 
The  complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

does  not  b e l i e v e  

APPLICANT'S  REVIEW OF A I R   FORCE  EVALUATION: 
Applicant disagreed with the comments in the advisory opinion that 
his  request  was n o t   timely and that  it  lacked merit.  He  provided 
his  expanded  comments  addressing  specific  issues  raised  in  t h e  
advisory. 
With  regard  to the o t h e r   issues which may  have  contributed to his 
nonselection for promotion,  applicant  stated there was no letter to 
the  board  on  these  issues because  it  was  the  perception  of  many 
senior officers who knew his record that he would have been at t h e  
top of t h e   list of h i s   in the zone l o o k   for promotion to lieutenant 
colonel. 
He  reiterated his  contention that if comments concerning attending 
ACSC in residence  and follow-on  j o b   assignment  had been  p u t   in the 
contested OPR, he would  have  been promoted to lieutenant colonel by 

3 

AFBCMR  97- 03473 

t h e   CY97C  promotion  board. 
attested to by the evidence submitted with his application. 
Applicant's  complete response is at Exhibit E. 

This  omission  was  unintended  as 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
I.  The  applicant has  exhausted all  remedies provided  by  existing 
law or regulations. 
2.  The  application  was  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to t i m e l y   file. 
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 t h e   merits  of t h e  
including  the  supporting  statements  fxom  the  rater  and 
case, 
additional rater on the contested report.  While  supportive of the 
applicant's  appeal, the  statements from the  evaluators do  n o t ,   in 
our  opinion,  support  a  f i n d i n g   that  they  w e r e   precluded  from 
including  comments  r e g a r d i n g   school  recommendations and  follow-on 
assignment  recommendations  on  the  contested  report. 
The  rater 
indicated t h a t   he did  n o t   include t h i s   information because it was 
his  understanding that  such  information was  prohibited.  However, 
we note that applicant's  five reports p r i o r   to the contested r e p o r t  
included  school  recommendations  and  assignment  recommendations. 
Based  on  a  review of  t h e   evidence provided,  we  are  not  persuaded 
that  t h e   contested  report  is  in  e r r o r   as  rendered,  only  that  it 
could have  been written differently.  Based  on the  foregoing, and 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find no compelling 
basis to recommend f a v o r a b l e   action on applicant's  request t o  amend 
the contested report. 

4.  The applicant has offered a number of reasons which he believes 
may have a t t r i b u t e d   to his nonselection f o r   promotion by  the CY97C 
Lieutenant  C o l o n e l   Board;  i.e.,  d u t y   titles,  assignment  history, 
awards,  indorsement  levels  on  earlier  OERs, 
However,  no 
evidence  has  been presented to substantiate these contentions.  In 
addition, the  applicant could have  made  this information available 
to  the  selection  board  members  through  a  l e t t e r   to  the  Board 
However,  it  appears  that  he  did  not  exercise  this 
President. 
right.  In view  of  the  f o r e g o i n g ,   and  in the  absence of  evidence 
showing  that  applicant's  records  were  improperly constituted when 
he  was  considered  for  promotion  by  t h e   CY97C  Lieutenant  C o l o n e l  
Board, we  conclude  t h a t   there is no  basis upon  which  to recommend 
that  he  r e c o n s i d e r e d   for  promotion  t o   the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by Special Selection Board. 

e t c .  

4 

AFBCMR  97- 03473 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  n o t  
demonstrate  t h e   existence  of  probable  material  error  o r   i n j u s t i c e ;  
t h a t   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   w a s   denied  without  a  personal  appearance;  and 
t h a t   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  t h e   submission 
of  newly  discovered  r e l e v a n t   evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  t h i s   application  in 
t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   of  AFI 
Executive  Session  on  15  May  1 9 9 8 ,   under 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr.  LeRoy  T .   Baseman,  P a n e l   Chair 
M r .   Steven A.  Shaw,  Member 
Mr.  Parker C.  Horner,  Member 

The following documentary  evidence  was c o n s i d e r e d :  

Exhibit A.  DD Form  1 4 9 ,   d a t e d   1 8   Nov  97,  w / a t c h s .  
Exhibit B .   A p p l i c a n t ’ s   Master  Personnel Records. 
E x h i b i t   C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP,  d a t e d   22 Dec  97. 
Exhibit  D.  L e t t e r ,   SAF/MIBR,  dated 1 2   J a n   9 8 .  
E x h i b i t   E .   L e t t e r ,  

LEROY T .   BASEMAN 
Panel  Chair 

5 

AFBCMR  97- 03473 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE EASE TEXAS 

2 2  DEC a? 

V.S.  AfR FORCE B 

1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7  

MEMORANTIUMFOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPP 

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

SUBJECT: 

Reauested Action.  Applicant requests comments be added in Sections V and VII of his 
officer performance report (OPR) that closed out 1 Jan 93; removal of duplications of duty titles 
in the assignment history portion of his OSB; duty title on his 3 Feb 88 OPR changed fiom 
‘Vehicle Operations Officer” to “Chief, Plans and Programsy’; mention of his recommendations 
for four meritorious senrice medals (MSMS); addition of his Reserve Officer Training Corps 
(ROTC) duty history; explanation of his extended tenure at Kansas and Alaska; reason he did not 
have higher level indorsements on some of his early officer evaluation reports (Om). Ifhis 
requests are approved, he requests Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to 
the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) central promotion selection 
board with the inclusion of the revised report in his officer selection record (OSR). 

Basis for Request.  Applicant contends the omission of crucial comments concemhg 

attending Intermediate Service School (ISS) in residence and a follow on job assignment fiom the 
Jan 93 OPR contributed significantly to his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel by 
the P0597C board.  He would also like to address the other issues listed above, as they may have 
also been factors attributing to his nonselection. 

I 

&commendation. Time bar. If the AFBCMR considers, deny due to lack of merit. 
Facts and Comments; 

a.  Application is not timely.  If the AFBCMR considers, we recommend denial 

due to lack of merit.  By law, a claim must be filed within three years of the date of d&covery of 
the alleged error or injustice (10 U.S.C. 1552[b]).  It is obvious that the errors claimed here were 
discoverable at the time they O C C U K ~ .  The applicant provided nothing to convince us that the 
errors were not discoverable until 16 Oct 97, 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 Defweiler v. Pena, 
38F.3d591 (DE. Cir 1994)--w&ch  prevents application of the statute’s time bar if the appIicant 
has filed within thee years of separation or retirement. 

.

.

.
.

 
 

b.  AFR 36-10, The Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the govemhg 

O

I

 

directive. 

e.  In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a personal briec copy of the 

contested OPR; copy of a perfonnance feedback worksheet (PF‘W); copy of letters fiom rater and 
additional rater; letters from individuals outside the rating chain of the contested report; a letter 
fiom the applicant’s senior rater fiom the P0597C promotion board; copy of the applicant’s 3 Feb 
88 OPR, and copy of the applicant’s officer selection brief 

d.  OPR issues: 

(1)  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 &om & the 
evaluators Born the report-not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanatination. The letters 
fiom outside the rating chain are not germane to this case.  The rater f?om  the 1 Jan 93 OPR 
states in his letter he conducted a thorough review of the applicant’s performance, achievements 
and potential and concluded that each were of the highest order and warranted continued 
promotion.  However, he states he did not mention the follow-on job assignment 
recommendations and school recommendations because he thought they were prohibited 
statements. Although he states “I recall during this period (covered by the OPR) in AETC that 
OPRs with even “veiled” references to specific promotion as well as PME attendance were being 
sent back for correction.”  However, the appIicant was dso in AETC (then ATC) for the five 
OPRs immediately preceding the contested OPR and all of those five reports had assignment and 
school recommendations.  If the rater did, in fact, make a thorough review of the applicant’s 
records, he would have seen the follow-on assignment recommendations and school 
recommendations on the previous five OPRs.  The additionat rater/reviewer states, “he was 
clearly remiss in not making a recommendation about school or fbture assignments on the OPR 
which he signed on 2 Jan 93.”  Evaluations receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter 
of record.  Any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or 
enhance the ratee’s promotion potential.  But the time to do that is before the report becomes a 
matter of record.  Neither of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were 
. 
hindered from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of the appIicant’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 to add statements in Sections V and VII. 
(2)  The OPR rendered to the applicant 3 Feb 88 has been a matter of 

record for nine plus years.  The applicant contends his duty title should be changed fiom “Vehicle 
Operations Officer” to “Chief, Plans and Programs.”  However, he failed to provide any support 
fiom those who rendered the report.  As mentioned above, evaluations are considered accurate 8s 
written when it becomes a matter of record.  It takes considerable evidence to have a report 
changed or voided. It is apparent the OPR did not have an adverse effect on the appiicant’s 
promotion potential, as he was promoted to the grade of major-with it filed in his OSR. 

I 

. 

e.  The applicant contends duplications of duty titles in the assignment history 

portion of his OSB; mention of his recommendations for four Meritorious Service Medals 
(MSMs); addition of his Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) duty history; explanation of his 
extended tenure at Kansas and Alaska; and the reason he did not have higher level indorsements 
on some of his early officer evaluation reports (OERS) may have attributed to his nonselection. 
However, the time to bring these issues to the board’s attention is before the promotion board by 
letter to the board president, not after. Each eligible officer considered by the P0597C board 
received detailed instructions for review of their preselection briefs and associated records some 
90 days prior to the board.  The instructions clearly state “Officers are responsible for reviewing 
their PIG, OPRs and data on their preselection brief for accuracy prior to the board date, 
addressing all concerns and discrepancies through their servicing Military PersonneI Flight (MPF), 
and if necessary, their chain of command and senior rater.  Officers will not be considered by SSB 
if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered an error or omission in 
hidher records and could have taken timely corrective action.” It was his responsibility to notify 
the board of the issues mentioned above, if he believed them to be important to his promotion 
consideration.  However, we do not find any record the applicant wrote such a letter to the board 
president.  The applicant states, “I am sure that had the original promotion board had the benefit 
of this information, I would have been promoted.”  Why then, we must wonder, did the applicant 
not address these issues in a letter to the board president prior to the promotion board? We, 
therefore, do not believe he exercised reasonable diligence to ensure his records were accurate 
prior to the board and strongly recommend denying the applicant’s request for SSB consideration 
on these issues. 

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

appropriate. 

ING, @% Lt Co , - u  

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt