.  ..,  . : 
'
. .* 
'  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

*  . .. 7. 
. .. 
.
 

, .:. 
 
. 

.  . 
_ .
 
.
. .  

2;. 

.  :. 

..  :.*: 
.

' 

.
. 

  . 

.

.

.

.
.

. * 
 
.
.

.

..  .. .,  : 
 
.

 

.

 

.  . 
.  . 

, . , e  

..- 

..? 

. 

.
.. 

.

 
.... 

e

. . ' ?  

.

 

WASHINGTON, DC 

/' 

JUN  3 0  

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00028 

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: 

itary  records  of the  Department of the  Air  Force  relating  t 
to  include  the  Field  Grade  Officer  Report  rendered  for 

1 July 1996 through 20 February  1997, be  considered for promotion to  the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

L/  D' irector 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

U 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00028 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

He be considered 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: 

His  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) rendered  for  the  period 
1 July  1996  through  20  February  1997,  was  submitted  to  the 
selection  board  on  the  wrong  form.  He  believes  this  had  a 
negative influence on the promotion board. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, 
the  contested  report,  the  reaccomplished  report,  and  other 
documentation. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of Major. 

He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY96C  and  CY97C  lieutenant  colonel 
selection boards. 

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions 
of  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation 
Reports.  The Evaluation Review Appeal Board  (ERAB) approved his 
request to replace the OPR with a reaccomplished version on the 
appropriate form.  They denied the request for SSB consideration. 

OER/OPR profile since 1 9 9 0 ,  

follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

9 8 - 0 0 0 2 8  

7  Jan 9 0  
2 9   May 9 0  
2 9   May 9 1  
2 9   May 92 
1 Feb 93 
1 Feb 94 
1 Feb 95 
1 Feb 96 
30 Jun 96 
2 0   Feb 9 7  
6  Oct 97 

Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 

Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel 
Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application and 
states that although the applicant's OPR was printed on the wrong 
form, the  accomplishments  on  the  form  are  identical  to  those 
viewed  by  the  selection  board. 
There  is  no  evidence  the 
contested  OPR  negatively  impacted  his  promotion  opportunity. 
Central  boards  evaluate  the  entire  officer  selection  record 
records  prior  to  the 
(OSR).  Had  the  applicant  reviewed  his 
the OPR was printed on 
promotion board, he would have discovered 
OPR was printed on the 
the wrong form.  He did not.  Although the 
and reaccomplished OPR 
wrong form, the comments on the contested 
recommend  denial  of 
are  exactly  same. 
Therefore,  they 
applicant's request. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that 
he took appropriate measures to ensure his OSR was correct prior 
to the convening of the promotion board.  He discovered the error 
five  months  prior  to  the  promotion  board. 
His  commander 
reaccomplished  the  OPR  and  the  commander's  executive  officer 
reassured him  the mistake had been corrected.  The OPR was not 
corrected and he was notified of the error two days prior to the 
board  results  being  announced.  The  OPR  stating  company grade 
officer  could  have  negatively  influenced  the  board's  decision 
although the comments were exactly the same. 

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

2 

98-00028 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES 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. 
Applicant  alleges  that  his  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) 
closing  20  February  1997, was  submitted on  the  wrong  form  and 
believes  that  this error had  a negative influence on the CY97C 
lieutenant  colonel  selection  board  members. 
The  Air  Force 
concludes the OPR  in question was  submitted on the wrong  form; 
however,  they  believe  the  selection  board  reviews  the  entire 
record and there is no evidence the OPR negatively impacted his 
promotion  opportunity.  They  also  state  that  if  the  applicant 
carefully reviewed his records prior to the promotion board, he 
would have discovered the OPR was printed on the wrong form.  In 
cases  similar  to  the  applicant' s ,   this  Board  normally  would 
conclude  the  error  was  harmless. 
However,  after  reviewing 
applicant's  comments  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation,  we  are 
persuaded  that  his  corrected  record  should  be  considered  for 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection 
Board  (SSB) for the CY97C board.  In this respect, we note that 
applicant took  steps to have  the  report corrected and was  told 
that it was sent for inclusion in his records.  Applicant states 
in  his  response,  'The  comments  in  the  advisory  reinforce  my 
contention  that  the promotion  board  could have  been negatively 
influence by the mistake in my records.  First, it emphasizes my 
responsibility  to  ensure  the  accuracy of  my  records.  Second, 
even though I discussed it in two documents, Lt Col S assumed I 
didn't  take  action  to  have my  records changed.  The promotion 
board didn't  have  the advantage of two explanations.  They only 
knew  I didn't  have  an  obvious mistake  corrected.  The  mistake 
sent the wrong message  to the board  just like it did to Lt Col 
In view of the above, we recommend favorable action on this 
S . "  
application. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  to  include  the  Field  Officer  Report 
rendered for the period 1 July 1996 through 20 February 1997, be 
considered for promotion  to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel by 
Special  Selection Board  for the  Calendar Year  1997C Lieutenant 
Colonel Board. 

3 

.  + ,  
. .  
.
...  . 
.
.

.  ' 
.
 
.
. ,   . 
 

* 

.
. 

.

-

 

 
.+ . 

. . .  
.
. . 
. 

.

 
. c * - j  

1.  . 

- .
  . 

. 

*

-

-  .. 
.
- .  
.  .  . . .  . 

 

. 

1 .  

*- 

. 

. *' 
.. 

. 

.. 
98-00028 

4

.

.  .*3.:6.: *  1 
. .   . 

.

.

 

. 

 

* 

The followinq members of the Board considered this application in 
AFI 
Executive S e d o n  on 28 April  1998, under the provisions of 
36-2603 : 

I 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member 
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member 

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

T h e  

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 December 1997. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 27 January 1998. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 February 1998. 
Exhibit E.  Applicant's  Response, dated 19 February 1998. 

Panel Chair 

V 

4 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPUDPPPAB 

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

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action. Applicant requests special selection board consideration (SSB) by the 
CY 97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) central lieutenant colonel selection b o d  with inclusion of the 
comcted officer pefiormance report (OPR) that closed out 20 Feb 97 in his officer selection 
record 

Basis for Request. Applicant believes the P0597C promotion board members may have 
perceived a negative impression of him because his most recent OPR was printed on the wrong 
form. 

Recommendation.  Deny 

I 

Facts and Comments. 

J 

a. The application is timely. The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 

36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Review 
Appeal B&d  (ERM3) appro~d his request to replace the OPR with a reaccomplished 
version o n k  appropriate form.  However, they denied his request for SSB consideration 
based on tlie change.  A copy of the letter announcing the ERAB’s decision, dated 7 Nov 97, 
is included’in the applicant’s appeal pkage. The applicant has two nonselections to the 
grade of li&enant  colonel by the CY96C (8 Jd 96) (P0596C) and P0597C central lieutenant 
colonel selection boards. 

, 

Continuation, 

* 

< 

b. The goveming directive is AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective 
1 Mar 96. 
c.  Ih support of his appeal, the applicant includes a personal brief; a copy of a 

memorandum h m  HQ AFPC/DPPPAE, a copy of the ERAB appeal pkage; a copy of the 
erroneous OPR; and a copy of the corrected OPR 

d.  Although the applicant’s OPR was printed on the wrong form, the 

accomplishments on the form are identical b those viewed by the original P0597C board.  W e  
it may be argued that the contested OPR was a factor in the appriCant’s nonselection., there is no 

clear evidence that it negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the 
entire o f f i m  selection record (OSR) (including the promotion recommendation form, officer 
performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training reports, letters of evaluation, 
decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing whole person factors such as job performance, 
professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and 
professional military education. 

e.  Xn addition, each eligible officer considered by the P0597C board received 
detailed instructions for review of their preselection briefs and associated records.  The 
instructions clearly state, “Officers are responsible for reviewing their PRF, OPRS and data on 
their preselection brief and associated records for accuracy prior to the board date, addressing all 
concerns and discrepancies through their servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF), and if 
necessary, their chain of command and senior rater.  Officers will not be knsidered by SSB if, in 
exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered an error or omission in 
m e r  records and could have taken timely correcfive action.” The OPR was signed by the 
applicant’s &er  on 20 Feb 97, some 5 months prior to the promotion bard.  Had the applicant 
carehlly reviewed his records prior to the promotion board, he would have discovered the OPR 
was printed on the wrong form.  It is apparent he did not carellly review his records until after 
his nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Therefore, we recommend denying the 
applicant’s request for SSB consideration on this issue. 

Summary.  The applicant has not convinced us he exercised reasonable diligence to ensure 

his records were accurate prior to the promotion board.  Although the OPR was printed on the 
wrong form, and subsequently replaced with a copy on the appropriate form, the comments on 
the OPR are exactly the same.  Therefore, our rmmmenhtion of denial is appropriate. 

MARIA”E STFNJNG, Lt ColaSAF 
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt