AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

. .  

IN THE  MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03679 

None 

COUNSEL: 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

4 -  

- 

KC 3  0  l99a 

a. 

I

;

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT : 
A  recommendation  for  Squadron  Officer  School 
and 
augmentation into the Regular Air  Force  (RegAF) be added to his 
Officer Performance Report  (OPR)  rendered for the period 3  Aug 91 
through  14 Jul  92,  and  his  corrected  record  be  considered  by 
Special Selection  Board  (SSB) for RegAF  status by  the  Calendar 
Year 1993 (CY93) RegAF  Major  selection board  and for promotion to 
the grade of major by the CY98B  (6 A p r   98)  Major Board. 

(SOS) 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
1.  Recommendations  for  SOS  and  augmentation to  r e g u l a r   officer 
were mistakenly omitted from the contested report  as confirmed by 
letters from his additional rater and reviewer during the period 
in  question  and  by  data  corroborating  his  performance  and 
potential for f u t u r e   progression  (see Exhibit A). 
2.  He  contends  that  it  was  communicated  to  him  by  his  raters 
that  t h e   reason  he  did  not  g e t   a  definitely  promote  (DP) 
recommendation on  his Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) was due 
to the OPR in question.  He states that officers up  f o r   promotion 
from  captain  to  major 
who  receive  a  DP  recommendation 
historically have  experienced a  90+  percent  selection rate  ( s e e  
Exhibit AI). 
In support of his  appeal, the applicant provided  a  copy  of  the 
contested  r e p o r t ,   statements  from  the  additional  rater  and 
reviewer  of  the  report  in  q u e s t i o n ,   and  other  documentation 
relating to his appeal. 
Applicant’s complete submission is attached a t  Exhibits A  and AI. 

AFBCMR 97-03679 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  appli-cant's  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is 5 Oct 87.  He is currently serving on extended active 
duty in the grade of captain, effective, and with a date of rank 
(DOR) of 25 Jul 91. 

Applicant's 
follows: 

OPR/Officer  Effectiveness  Report  (OER)  profile 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

Education/Training Report  (TR) 

2 Nov 87 
23 May 88 
23 Nov 88 
17 Aug 89 
28 Feb 90 
28 Feb 91 
2 Aug  91 
*  14 Jul 92 
14 Jul 93 
24 Jun 94 
14 Jul 94 
14 Jul 95 
14 Jul 96 
14 Jul 97 

1-1-1 

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

TR 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

*  Contested Report. 

Two similar appeals were  submitted under AFI  36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports which were denied by  the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board  (ERAB) on 14 Jul 92 and 12 Mar 97, 
respectively. 

Applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for promotion  to  the 
grade of major by the CY98B Major Board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  promotion nonselection  is not  an 
issue. 
The  applicant  has  not  yet  been  considered  in  the 
promotion  zone  (IPZ) for promotion to the grade of major  by  the 
central major promotion selection board.  His contention that the 
recommendations  for  SOS  and  augmentation  to  RegAF  were 
inadvertently  omitted  from  the  contested  OPR  is  not  valid. 
Recommendations  to select for a particular Professional Military 
Education  (PME)  course,  such  as  SOS,  and  augmentation  are 
appropriate but not mandatory.  Further, 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  effutively 

2 

AFBCMR 97-03679 

for 

but 

the 

support 

challenge an OPR, it is important to hear from all the evaluators 
report-not 
from 
only 
for 
clarification/explanation. 
In  this  instance,  the  applicant 
failed  to  provide  a  letter  of  support  from  the  rater. 
The 
reviewer  states  that  he  concurred  with  the  additional  rater's 
evaluation  of  the  applicant,  which  did  not  include  statements 
addressing  the  applicant's  potential  for  recommendation  for 
attendance  to  SOS  or  augmentation  to  RegAF  but  a f t e r  
reconsideration  (some three years later), he agrees the deletion 
of those remarks was an administrative oversight.  Neither of the 
evaluators  from  the  contested  report  state  they  now  have 
information  that  was  previously  unavailable  when  they,  in  good 
judgment,  signed  the  original  OPR  and  it  became  a  matter  of 
record.  In addition, it is not uncommon for evaluators to render 
a  report  to  an  individual  and  then  years  later  soften  their 
original  appraisal of  the  ratee's  duty performance,  as memories 
fade over time.  Therefore, an evaluation report is considered to 
represent  the  rating  chain's  best  judgment  at  the  time  it  is 
rendered.  The burden of proof is on the applicant and he has not 
provided  adequate  evidence  to  substantiate the  contested  report 
was  not  rendered  in  good  faith  by  all  evaluators  based  on 
knowledge  available  at  the  time.  DPPPA  does  not  believe  the 
applicant was dealt an injustice. 

DPPPA  further  indicates  that  evaluation  reports  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.  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  and  the  appeals process does  not 
exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance  chances  for  promotion. 
DPPPA  asserts  the  applicant's  OPR  was  accomplished  in  direct 
accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time the report 
was rendered and are strongly opposed to replacing it with a new 
version. 

As  an  aside,  while  reviewing  the  applicant's  officer  selection 
record  (OSR),  DPPPA  noted  a  discrepancy  on  the  Air  Force 
Commendation  Medal  (AFCM),  First  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (1OLC) 
citation. 
The  copy  of  the  citation  and  order  the  applicant 
provided  reflect  the  inclusive  dates  of  service  for  the 
decoration were 15 Jul 92 -  14 Sep 95.  However, the copy of the 
citation in the applicant's  OSR only covers the period of 15 J u l  
92 -  15 Sep  94. 
In  addition,  the  verbiage  on  the  citations 
The  information  on  the  applicant's  CY97C  officer 
differ. 
selection  brief  (OSB)  (his  below  the  promotion  zone  major's 
board)  coincides  with  the  order  and  citation  provided  by  the 
applicant  in  his  appeal  package. 
DPPPA  removed  the  erroneous 
citation and inserted the appropriate citation in the applicant's 
OSR. 

3 

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

AFBCMR 97-03679 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  disagrees 
with the advisory opinion and again includes the statements from 
the additional  rater and reviewer of the report in question  (see 
Exhibit E). 

In an undated  statement, an individual who  indicates that he  is 
the  applicant’s  current  rater  and  supervisor  states  that  the 
contested  report  may  have  been  pivotal  in  applicant‘s 
nonselection to major  (see Exhibit F). 

On  7 Jul  98,  an  individual  who  indicates  that  he  is  the 
applicant’s  2-Letter Chief  states that  the  contested report may 
have been pivotal in applicant’s nonselection to major and states 
that  it  is  his  opinion  that  the  applicant  is  definitely 
promotable  and  capable  of  serving at  the  next  higher  rank  (see 
Exhibit G )  . 

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.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s 
submission,  including  the  statements  from  the  additional  rater 
and  reviewer  of  the contested OPR, we  are not persuaded that he 
should be  given  the  requested relief.  His  contentions are duly 
noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by 
themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale 
provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
We  therefore  agree  with  the 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed 
as  the  basis  for our  decision that  the  applicant  has  failed  to 
sustain  his  burden  that  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an 
injustice.  Therefore,  we  find no  compelling basis  to  recommend 
granting the relief sought. 

AFBCMR 97-03679 

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 8 October 1998, under the provisions of Air 
Force Instruction 36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit A1 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 

DD Form 149, dated 8 Dec 97, w/atchs. 
Letter fr applicant, dated 19 Jun 98, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 27 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 98. 
Letter fr applicant, dated 6 Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Letter, SMC/CZU, undated. 
Letter, SMC/CZ, dated 7 Jul 98. 

CHARLENE M.  BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

4 

5 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R   FORCE 

I 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPCYDPPPA 

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

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests a recommendation for Squadron Officer School 

(SOS) and augmentation to Regular Air Force (RegAl?) be added to his officer performance 
report (OPR) closing out 14 Jul92.  If the board agrees to add the statements, he requests 
consideration for RegAF status by the CY93 RegAF selection board. 

. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the recommendation for SOS and augmentation 

to RegAF statements were mistakenly omitted from the contested report. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

H 

Facts and Commepts. 

a.  Application is not timely.  However, 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. 1552@~]). It is obvious that the 
alleged errors claimed here were discoverable at the time they occurred. The applicant provided 
nothing to convince us that the alleged mors were not discoverable until April 95, 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. Penu, 38F.3d591 @.C.  Cir 1994)--which 
prevents application of the statute's  time bar if the applicant has filed. within three years of 
separation or retirement. 

b.  The applicant submitted two similar requests under AFI-36-2401 Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Eyaluation Reports, which were denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal 
Board (ERAB).  A copy of the letters announcing the ERAB's decisions, dated 14 Jul92 and 
12 Mar 97, are attached to this advisory. 

c.  AFR 36-10, OEcer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the governing directive. 

Promotion nonselection is not an issue.  The applicant has not yet been considered in-the- 
---*+.Grin -Ann  / T P ~ \  fnr nrfimntinn tn the orade nf maim bv the central major Promotion 

d.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of the contested OPR; a 
copy of AF Forms 948, Application for CorrectiodRemoval of Evaluation Reports, dated 3 1 Jan 
97 and 6 Apr 95; copy of a memorandum fiom the additional rater and reviewer from the report; 
copy of the AF Form 3538, Retention Recommendation Form, dated 26 Jan 92; AF Form 215, 
Officer Application for Training, dated 29 Jan 92; and copies of his decorations. 

e.  The applicant’s contention the recommendations for SOS and augmentation to 
Reg AF were inadvertently omitted from the contested OPR is not valid.  Recommendations to 
select for a particular Professional Military Education (PME) course, such as SOS, and 
augmentation  are appropriate (AFR 36-10 [Cl], para 7a), but not mandatory.  Further, 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 
c4allenge an OPR, it is important to hear fiom all the evaluators from the report--not only for 
support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. In ~yinstance, the applicant failed to provide a letter 
of support from the rater of the contested report.  He did however, provide letters fkom the 
additional rater and reviewer of the report.  The additional rater states, ‘? considered the applicant 
worthy of recommendation to attend SOS and augmentation as a regular officer .... Due to an 
administrative error during the preparation, this was not reflected on his OPR.” The reviewer 
states he concurred with the additional rater’s evaluation of the applicant, which did not include 
statements addressing the applicant’s potential for recommendation for attendance to SOS or 
augmentation to Re*; 
those remarks was an administrative oversight.  Neither of the evaluators from the contested 
report state they now have information that was previously Unavailable when they, in good 
judgment, signed  the original OPR and it became a matter of record.  In addition, it is not 
uncommon for evaluators to render a report to an individual, and then years later, soften their 
original appraisal of the ratee’s duty perfomance, as memories fade over time.  Therefore, an 
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered.  The burden of proof is on the applicant.  He has not provided adequate evidence to 
substantiate the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on 
knowledge available at the time.  We, therefore, do not believe the applicant was dealt an 
injustice. 

but afrr reconsideration, (some 3 years later), he agrees the deletion of 

f.  Evaluation reports 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.  None of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were 
hindered fiom 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.  We assert the applicant’s OPR was accomplished in direct 
accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time the report was rendered and are strongly 
opposed to reqlacing it with a new version. 

g.  While reviewing the applicant’s officer selection record (OSR) we noted a 
discrepancy on the Air Force Commendation Medal, 1 ‘ Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC) 

citation.  The copy of the citation and order the applicant provided reflect the inclusive dates of 
service for the decoration were 15 Jul92 - 14 S e p  95. However, the copy of the citation in the 
applicant’s OSR only covers the period of 15 JuI  92 - 15 Sep 94.  In addition, the verbiage on the 
citations differ.  The information on the applicant’s P0497C officer selection brief (OSB) (his 
below-the-promotion zone major’s board) coincides with th6 order and citation provided by the 
applicant in his appeal package.  We have, therefore, removed the erroneous citation and inserted 
the appropriate citation in the applicant’s OSR. 

Summary.  The applicant has failed to substantiate the OPR was flawed.  We do not believe 

SSB consideration is warranted. 

MAR1[A”E  STERLING, Lt Col, U&$F 
Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt 

cc: 
SAF/MIBR 

Atch: 
1. HQ AFPC/DPPPAE Ltr,  14 Jul92 
2. HQ AFPCLDPPPAE Ltr, 12 Mar 97 

9703679 

I .