DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

OCT  9 1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03787 

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: 

ords of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation Form 
for use by the Calendar Year 1996C Central Lieutenant Colonel 

Selection Board, which convened on 8 July 1996, be amended as follows: 
Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, Line 2 - change “Squadron” to read “Wing”; 
and, Line 7 - change to read “Our point man on $25 billion in airlift, special operations and EW 
programs-identified over 20 programs”. 

It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel 

by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1996C Central Lieutenant Colonel 
Selection Board, which convened on 8 July 1996, with inclusion of the corrected PRF. 

I/ 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-037 @T  8 1998 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His nonselections for promotion to lieutenant colonel  (Lt Col) be 
set aside and he be  retroactively promoted  to that grade as if 
selected  by  the  CY96C  (P0596C)  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Selection Board, which convened on 8 July 1996. 
If direct promotion is denied, he be  reconsidered for promotion 
to Lt Col by the P0596C Board, with the reaccomplished Promotion 
Recommendation Form  (PRF) provided. 

APPLICMT CONTENDS THAT: 
He  has  three  factual  errors  (Section IV, Line  2  -  ‘Squadron’ 
should  be  ‘Wing’, Line  6  -  ‘EW’ missing,  and  Line  7  -  ‘$20 
Billion‘  should  be  ‘$25 Billion’) on  his  PRF  and  the  ”bottom 
line“ bullet on the PRF misrepresents his senior rater’s intended 
recommendation.  His senior rater not only corrected the factual 
errors, but  saw it necessary to modify  his  remarks slightly in 
the promotion recommendation section to compensate for both the 
factual  errors  and  procedural  problems  encountered  when  the 
original PRF was reviewed. 

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  submits  a  personal 
statement,  statements  from  the  senior  rater  and  his  former 
supervisor,  concurrence  from  the  Management  Level  Board  (MLR) 
president, and the reaccomplished PRF  (Exhibit A). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
reveals  the  applicant’s Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service 
Date  (TAFMSD) as 28 May 1980.  He is currently serving on active 
duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and date of 
rank of 1 June 1992. 
Applicant’s  OPR  profile,  commencing  with  the  report  closing 
23 March 1994, follows: 

Period Endinq 

Evaluation 

23 Mar 94 
23 Mar 95 
1 Feb 96 
# 
##  1 Feb 97 
1 Feb 98 

Meets Standards  (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

#  Top report  at  the time he was considered and  nonselected for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the CY96C Central ,Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 8 July 1996. 
##  Top report at  the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to  lieutenant colonel by  the CY97C Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 21 July 1997. 
A  similar appeal by  the  applicant, under Air  Force  Instruction 
(AFI) 36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report 
Appeal Board  (ERAB) on 10 September 1997. 
On 26 August 1997, the AFBCMR considered and recommended approval 
of applicant's request for correction of the Aeronautical/Flying 
Data  on  his  Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB),  prepared  for 
consideration  by  the  CY96C  (8 July  1996)  Central  Lieutenant 
Colonel Board;  and, that  he  be  provided  SSB  consideration with 
inclusion  of  the  corrected  record.  On  5  December  1997,  the 
Deputy for Air  Force  Review  Boards directed  the  aforementioned 
corrections and SSB consideration. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Recorder, Officer Evaluation Boards, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, provided 
a technical review of the case.  A PRF should mirror an officer's 
Record  of  Performance  (ROP) and,  in  the  case  of  the  factual 
errors on the original PRF, DPPPEB supports changing the original 
PRF;  however,  the  reaccomplished  PRF  contains  several  other 
changes that are not  in error.  While  the applicant claims that 
"information and advice from subordinate raters are encouraged, I' 
DPPPEB stated that AFR  36-10 in no way requires this information 
f o r   the  preparation  of  a  PRF. 
A  senior  rater  is  solely 
responsible  for  the  information placed  into  a  PRF  and  no  new 
information has been provided  that was not already available in 
the  applicant's ROP.  DPPPEB  stated  that  other  than  the  three 
errors mentioned, replacing statements on a PRF after the fact is 
not  a valid  reason  for  the  PRF  to  be  replaced.  Retrospective 
views  of  wording/impact  are  not  valid  reasons  to  revise  an 
evaluation and provide  additional promotion  consideration which 
is not  afforded to other officers.  DPPPEB recommended that the 
applicant's PRF be  revised to  support the  changes to  the  three 
errors  only,  with  no  other  changes  to  the  content/wording 
(Exhibit C) . 

The  Directorate of  Personnel  Program Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP, 
stated that  absent clear-cut evidence  the  applicant would  have 
been  a  selectee by  the P0596C board,  a duly constituted board, 
applying  the  complete  promotion  criteria,  is  in  the  most 
advantageous position to render this vital determination.  Other 
than  his  own  opinion,  the  applicant  has  provided  no 
substantiation  for his  allegations.  DPPP  is opposed to direct 
promotion  to the grade of  lieutenant colonel.  DPPP points out 
that even though the applicant obtained concurrence from both the 
senior rater and MLR president to replace the factual errors on 
the PRF, all  the other  information was  previously  available to 
the applicant's  senior rater when he wrote the original PRF prior 
to the promotion board.  Therefore, DPPP does not agree with the 
additional comments and substitutions made in the other lines of 
Section  IV  of  the  applicant's  PRF.  If  the  Board  decides  to 
replace the original PRF with  a  revised version,  changing only 
the  factual  errors,  DPPP  has  no  objection  to  the  applicant 
receiving  SSB consideration, with  the  inclusion of  the  revised 
PRF in the applicant's  Officer Selection Record  (OSR) .  However, 
DPPP  is  strongly  opposed  to  the  applicant  receiving  a  direct 
promotion or to the Board directing further changes to the P0596C 
PRF (Exhibit D). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that 
his senior rater provided a statement indicating the original PRF 
was  in error and subsequently needed  to be  replaced with a new 
PRF correcting all the errors.  The Management Level Review (MLR) 
Board president  agreed with the senior rater and concurred with 
all the PRF changes.  He believes that the evidence in his case 
certainly proves the PRF he originally received was both in error 
and an unjust portrayal of his performance based potential. One 
only needs to compare his subsequent PRF  ( P 0 5 9 7 C )   to understand 
the tremendous injustice his  original  PRF caused.  He  requests 
that the Board order the replacement of his original PRF with the 
reaccomplished PRF, as supported by  his  former senior rater and 
MLR president; and, direct promotion to lieutenant colonel as if 
selected by the CY96 Lieutenant Colonel Board.  A complete copy 
of this response is appended at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error.  We  took notice of 
the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case, including the senior rater's  statement and the concurrence 

. 

3 

97- 03787 

of the Management Level Review  (MLR) president.  However, we are 
in  agreement  with  the  opinions  and  recommendations  of  the 
respective Air Force offices that, other than the factual errors, 
the revised statements contain information which would have been 
available  to  the  senior  rater  when  the  PRF  was  originally 
written.  Hence, we  are  unpersuaded  by  the  evidence  submitted 
that the PRF should be substituted.  In view of the foregoing, we 
recommend  that  only  the  factual  errors  on  the  cited  PRF  be 
corrected.  As to the issue of direct promotion, we find no basis 
upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  the  applicant's 
request for direct promotion to the grade of  lieutenant colonel. 
We believe  the applicant will  receive proper and  fitting relief 
by having the contested PRF corrected as indicated below and that 
he  be  provided  promotion  consideration  by  a  Special  Selection 
Board  (SSB) . 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to APPLICANT  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Promotion 
Recommendation Form  (PRF) , AF  Form  709, prepared for use by  the 
Calendar Year  1996C Central Lieutenant Colonel  Selection Board, 
which convened on 8 July 1996, be amended as follows: 

Section  IV,  Promotion  Recommendation,  Line  2,  change 
llSquadronll to read  llWingll; and, Line 7 change to read 'lour point 
man  on  $25  billion  in  airlift,  special  operations  and  EW 
programs-identified over 20 programs1'. 
It is further recommended that he be  considered for promotion to 
the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  a  Special  Selection  Board 
(SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  1996C  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Selection Board, which convened on 8 July 1996, with inclusion of 
the corrected PRF. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 11 August  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member 

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

4 

97-03787 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec  97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB,  dated 8 Jan 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ  AFPC/DPPP, dated 27 Jan 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit E.  Letter,  SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Feb 98 
Exhibit F.  Letters from applicant, undated, w/atchs, and 

dated 4 Aug 98. 

DOUGLAS J. HEADY 
Panel Chair 

5 

9 7 - 0 3 7 8 7  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

‘ 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

U.S. AIR FORCE B 

MEMORANDUM FOR SAFMIBR 

Oi8  JAN  t9SE 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

SUBJECT 

orrection of Military Records 

Requested Action: Applicant is requesting section IV, Promotion Recommendation, for 
his CY96 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be re- 
accomplished. 
Basis of Request:  Applicant contends section IV contains statements which are 
inaccurate as supported by his OPRs and Decorations. 
Facts:  Applicant met the CY96 Lieutenant Colonel Centra1 Selection Board with a 
“Promote” and was subsequently non-selected. 

Discussion:  We will only address the technical aspects of this case as they pertain to the 
PRF. Per AFR 36-10 (Aug 88) Chapter 4-9 (a-l), the governing directive for this time 
fiame, clearly states that a  senior rater is responsible for preparing a PRF.  As stated by 
the applicant, several errors are indeed documented witbin the applicant’s Record or 
Performance (ROP).  Specifically the following: 

Line 2 - ‘Squadron’ should be ‘Wing’ 
Line 6 - ‘EW missing 
Line 7 - ’$20 Billion’ should be ‘$25 Billion’ 

. 

A PRF should mirror an officer’s ROP and in the case of the above errors on the original 
PRF, we support these changes to the original PRF; however, the re-accomplished P W  
contains several other changes that are not in error. 

The applicant provides several letters of support stating why the new information has 
been added to the re-accomplished PRF.  in essence, the applicant’s claim stems fiom the 
fact that his immediate supervisor was brand new and therefore, unaware of the 
applicant’s rated accomplishments and their significance.  While the applicant claims that 
“information and advice from subordinate raters are encouraged,” AFR 36-1 0 (Aug 88) in 
no way requires this information for the preparation of a PRF.  Again, a senior rater is 

536 3 7 g 7  

solely responsible for the information placed into a PRF and no new information has been 
provided that was not already available in the applicant’s ROP. 
Other than the three errors mentioned above, replacing statements on a PRF after the fact 
is not a valid reason for the PRF to be replaced.  Retrospective views of wordinglimpact 
are not valid reasons to revise an evaluation and provide additional promotion 
consideration which is not afforded to other officers.  Replacing a valid statement with 
another valid statement is inappropriate. 

Recommendation:  A PRF is considered to be an accurate assessment of an officer’s 
performance when rendered.  The applicant’s original PRF was examined and found to 
contain three errors which were documented by the applicant’s ROP; however, the PRF 
contains several other revisionshe-wording that are not shown to be in error. 
Recommend applicant’s PRF be revised to support the changes to the three errors only 
with no other changes to the contentlwording. 

~\brrfj M. DEVILLIER, capt, USAF 
Recorder, USAF Officer Evaluation Boards 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt. 

4 763783 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE P E R S O N k P L  CENTER 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR~FORCE 
‘ 
8 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

I 
i 
! 

! 

.I 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AJ?Pc/DPPP. 

c 

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

SUBJECT 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant 
colonel be over-turned and he be retroactively promoted to that grade as if originally selected by 
the CY96C (8 Jul96) P0596B central lieutenant colonel selection board.  If direct promotion is 
denied, he requests special selection board (SSB) consideration with 8 revised version of his 
promotion recommendation form (PRF). 

Basis for Request.  AppIicant contends he has three factual errors on his PRF and the 
“bottom line” bulIet on the PRF misrepresents his senior rater’s intended recommendation. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments: 

‘ 

a.  Application is timely.  Applicant submitted an appeal requesting replacement 
of the contested PRF under AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 
which was denied by the Evaluation Report 
announcing the ERAB’s decision, dated 10 
nonselections to the grade of lieutenant col 
central lieutenant colonel selection boards. 

copy of the letter 
Applicant has two 
97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) 

b.  .AFR 36-10, The O f i m  Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the governing 

directive, 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a copy of the P0596C PRF, a 
personal brief; a reaccomplished copy of the P0596C PFW; memorandums from the senior rater 
and someone h r n  outside the rating chain; and a memorandum h m  the applicant to the 
president of the Management Level Review (MLR) board. 

d.  We contend that insufficient  relevant evidence has been presented to 

demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice, in regard to the applicant’s request for 
direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  An officer may be qualified for promotion, 
but, in the judgment of a selection board--vested with discretionary authority to make the 

q 70 37b7 

. t  -- 

selections--he may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of 
promotion vacancies,  Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been a selectee by the 
P0596C board, wh believe a duly constituted board, applying the complete promotion criteria, is 
in the most advanhgeous position to render this vital determination.  The board’s prerogative to 
do so should not be usurped except under extraordinary circumstances.  Further, to grant a direct 
promotion would be unfair to all other officers  who have extremely competitive records arid also 
did not get promoted.  Other than his own opinion, the applicant has provided no substantiation 
to his allegations.  The burden of proof is on him.  We are strongly opposed to direct promotion. 

e.  We concur with the advisory written by HQ AFPWDPPPEB.  We would not 

be opposed to the board directing correction of the three “factual” errors identified by the 
applicant in lines two, six and seven of Section IVY Promotion Recommendation, on the 
applicant’s PRF.  We would like to point out that even though the applicant obtained 
concurrence h m  both the senior rater and MLR president to replace the factual errors on the 
PRF, all the other information was previously available to the applicant’s senior rater when he 
wrote the original PRF prior to the promotion board.  We, therefore, do not agree with the 
additional comments and substitutions made h the other lines of Section IV of the applicant’s 
PRF. 

Summary.  If the board decides to repIace the original PRF with a revised version, 

changing only the fxtual errors, we have no objection to the applicant receiving SSB 
consideration with the inclusion of the revised PRF in the appIicant’s OSR However, we are 
strongiy opposed to the applicant receiving a direct promotion or to the board directing further 
changes to the P0596C PRF. 

Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch 
~ i r  

of Personnel Program ~ g t