RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03586
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01; 131.10
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 19 July 1996  be  removed
from his records.  If his request is approved, he also  requests  that
he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  (CY)  1997C
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater’s overall assessment does not reflect or document the entire
worth of his accomplishments or how they had an impact on the  mission
of his major command (MAJCOM).

Being rated by Army officers, who did not know,  understand,  or  have
training on the Air Force’s Officer Evaluation System (OES),  severely
impacted his career.

The additional rater  did  not  write  the  comments  in  Section  VII
(Additional  Rater  Overall  Assessment).   The   additional   rater’s
assessment is not that of the additional rater, but that of the rater.

The  report  was  prepared  contrary  to  the  governing   Air   Force
Instruction (AFI).  The reviewer, his senior rater,  was  not  at  his
command during his evaluation period to  ensure  an  accurate  report.
The Air Force advisor who signed the report did not have knowledge  of
him or his performance  during  the  evaluation  period.   The  report
closed out late and the Air Force advisor did not advise  his  non-DAF
(Department of the Air Force) evaluator  (Army  officer)  of  the  Air
Force’s rating policies and procedures.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence  submitted  in
support of his application are included at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 June 1981, applicant was appointed as second lieutenant, Reserve
of the Air Force, and ordered to extended active duty.  He has  served
on continuous active duty, was integrated into Regular component on  6
April 1989, and progressively promoted to the grade of major.

A resume of applicant’s OERs/OPRs subsequent to his promotion  to  the
grade of captain follows:

     PERIOD CLOSING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      25 Aug 85  1-1-1
      25 Aug 86  1-1-1
      27 Mar 87  1-1-1
      27 Mar 88  1-1-1 (w/LOEs)
      27 Mar 89  Meets Standards (MS)
      27 Mar 90  MS
      31 Aug 90  MS
      31 Aug 91  MS
      14 Aug 92  MS
      15 Jun 93  MS
       3 Jan 94  MS
       3 Jan 95  MS
      19 Jul 95  MS
   *  19 Jul 96  MS
      19 Jul 97  MS

* Contested report; this was the top report on  file  when  considered
and not selected for promotion by the CY97C Lieutenant  Colonel  Board
which convened on 21 July 1997.

A similar request, submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,  was
denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board on 15 October 1997.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended  denial,  stating  that  obvious  by  their  absence   are
statements from the evaluators during the contested rating period.  In
order to successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation  report,
it is important to hear from the  evaluators  -  not  necessarily  for
support, but at least for  clarification/explanation.   The  applicant
has not provided any such documentation.   Without  benefit  of  these
statements, DPPPA can only conclude the OPR is accurate as written.

Noting the applicant’s contention that the rater’s overall  assessment
does not reflect or document the entire worth of  his  accomplishments
or their impact on the mission, DPPPA stated that  it  is  up  to  the
evaluators to chose what information will and will not be added to the
OPR.   While  DPPPA  acknowledges  that  the   applicant   made   many
accomplishments during the rating period, it was still up to the rater
and additional rater to determine what they  believed  were  the  most
significant during the evaluation period.  DPPPA believes  the  spirit
and intent of the governing AFI were met.

When performance reports are prepared, it is not an uncommon  practice
for the rater to prepare proposed comments for the  additional  rater.
It is up to the additional rater to  either  accept  the  comments  as
written or change them to suit the individual being evaluated.   DPPPA
finds it difficult to understand why the additional  rater  would  put
his signature to an important document such as the OPR  without  first
reviewing what he was signing.  If the additional rater  now  believes
the comments he made  are  invalid,  then  why  didn’t  he  provide  a
statement in support of the applicant’s appeal?

Regarding his contention that the reviewer was not in  his  evaluation
chain at the time of the closeout of the report, DPPPA stated there is
no regulatory requirement for the reviewer to be in the  rating  chain
during the rating period.  Only the rater must meet this requirement.

DPPA further stated there was no regulatory requirement  for  the  Air
Force advisor to be assigned to the applicant’s command during most of
the reporting period.  In addition, no evidence has been provided that
the Air Force advisor failed to obtain knowledge of the applicant  and
his performance from appropriate sources (knowledge of the  ratee  and
his/her accomplishments does not have to be first hand).

The contested report did not close out on  or  after  the  applicant’s
departure.  Even though it did take an inordinate amount  of  time  to
process the report, the fact remains that it did,  indeed,  close  out
prior to his departure.

Applicant has not provided any proof that the rater was  not  familiar
with the OES, and even if he wasn’t, the additional rater -  the  same
officer who indorsed the applicant’s two  previous  OPRs  -  concurred
with the rater’s assessment.  A rater’s failure to conduct a  required
or requested feedback session does  not,  in  itself,  invalidate  any
subsequent OPR or PRF (AFI 36-2402, para 2.10).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, applicant restated  his  contentions  concerning  his
accomplishments  and  the  critical  oversight  on  the  part  of  the
evaluators on the contested report.  He stated that he  contacted  the
additional rater for  support  and  that  he  (the  additional  rater)
initially agreed to provide the applicant with  a  memorandum  stating
that he made an oversight.  However, after  receiving  the  memorandum
the applicant drafted for his signature, he changed his mind.

He further stated his rater fully supports his appeal and has  clearly
stated the omissions were an oversight on his  part.   The  facts  are
clear that he (rater) drafted the OPR as is and the  additional  rater
mistakenly signed it without review.

Applicant’s response, which includes a supporting statement  from  the
rater on the contested report, and copies of a memorandum  he  drafted
for the additional rater’s signature and  the  initial  draft  of  the
contested report, 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 timely filed.

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 statement submitted in his behalf from the rater on  the
contested report.  While supportive of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  the
rater’s statement does 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.  In  addition,  we  found  no  evidence
substantiating applicant’s assertions that the  contested  report  was
prepared contrary to the governing regulation.  Nor did  we  find  the
rater’s failure to conduct a feedback session, in  and  of  itself,  a
sufficient basis to invalidate the report.  In view of the  foregoing,
and in the absence of 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 21 July 1998, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
      Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Jan 98, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Feb 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Feb 98, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair