AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00410 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

SEP  2  9 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs), closing  13 August  1993 
and  4  June  1994, be  replaced  with  the  reaccomplished  reports 
provided; and, that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant 
colonel by a Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the CY97C  (21 Jul 
97) Lieutenant Colonel Board  (P0597C), with the corrected OPRs. 

AP PL I CAN T CONTENDS THA T: 
The contested OPRs do not reflect Professional Military Education 
(PME) recommendations.  His  rating  chain,  who  supervised  his 
performance during  the period  of  the  two  reports, acknowledges 
they erroneously omitted the PME statements due to improper and 
frequently changing guidance provided through military personnel 
channels. 

In support of his request, applicant submits personal statements, 
a  copy  of  his  AFI  36-2401  application,  with  copies  of  the 
reaccomplished  OPRs,  statements  from  his  rating  chain,  and 
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his 
contentions (Exhibit A). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On 30 May 1981, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, 
Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended 
active duty.  He  was  integrated  into the Regular Air  Force on 
19 March 1985 and has been progressively promoted to the grade of 
major, effective and with a date o'f  rank of 1 November 1993. 
Applicant's  OPR  profile,  commencing  with  the  report  closing 
13 August 1991, follows: 
Period End ing 

pvaluat ion 

13 Aug 91 
13 Aug 92 
*  13 Aug 93 
*  4 Jun 94 
4 Jun 95 

Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

4  Jun 96 
#  4 Jun 97 

MS 
MS 

*  Contested OPRs 
#  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  in  part  by  the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board  ( E m )  on 19 December 1997. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Directorate of  Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, 
reviewed this application and  recommended denial.  DPPPA stated 
that the governing regulation stipulates that PME recommendations 
are appropriate.  DPPPA points out that research revealed other 
officers assigned to the same unit as the applicant received PME 
recommendations during  the  contested  reporting periods.  DPPPA 
indicated  that  the  PME  recommendation  statement  which  the 
applicant now wants added to the OPRs in question is optional, 
and its absence does not  flaw the report.  DPPPA disagrees with 
the applicant's contention that lack of rlpushll statements for PME 
were the cause of his nonselection for lieutenant colonel by the 
P0597C board.  DPPPA stated that there is no clear evidence that 
it negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards 
evaluate  the  entire  officer  selection  record  (OSR) . 
DPPPA 
indicated that a review of a sampling of  selection records from 
the  P0597C  board  revealed  that  not  all  officers  with  PME 
recommendations on their OPRs were selected for promotion by the 
board  nor  did  all  officers  selected  have  consistent  PME 
recommendations.  A complete copy of this evaluation is appended 
at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

He  was  unaware  of  the  error/injustice  and  its  career-ending 
implications  until  after  the  promotion  board  results  were 
announced and he  completed extensive discussions with personnel 
experts  and  leaders  in  his  former  chain  of  command. 
AFPC 
incorrectly concludes that  due  to  other  officers receiving PME 
recommendations in the same unit during the contested periods, a 
conscious decision must have been made not to recommend him.  The 
fact  that  his  performance was  unanimously  lauded while  at  the 
same time he received no PME recommendation and others did, only 
adds credibility to the contention that guidance was inconsistent 
and  transitory.  As  further  evidence  of  continually  changing 
guidance  at  Elmendorf  AFB,  he  was  given  strong  PME 
recommendations on his  OPR  closing  13 August  1992  bv  the  same 
rater who did not recommend him for PME on the contested reports. 

2 

98-00410 

His rating chain, along with the support group commander and wing 
commander,  have  all  attested  in  writing  to  the  problem  of 
inconsistent and improper guidance on this issue.  He was one of 
only two officers in the Operations Flight, the other being his 
rater.  AFPC’s contention  that  his  claim  is  unfounded  because 
other officers received PME recommendations would  only be valid 
if the chain of command were identical for these other officers - 
again, there were no other officers in the Operations Flight at 
that time.  The advisory opinion directly contradicts the opinion 
of the AFPC promotions expert who conducted an exhaustive review 
of his records and counseled him on why he was not selected for 
promotion.  A  complete  copy  of  this  response  is  appended  at 
Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  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 timely file. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the  existence of  probable  error or  injustice.  The 
supporting documents provided by the applicant are sufficient to 
cause doubt concerning the fairness and accuracy of the contested 
reports.  In this respect, we are persuaded by the statements of 
support  from  the  rating  chain  which  specifically  outline  the 
reasons  why  the  contested  reports  are  flawed  and  support  the 
applicant’s request.  Having no reason to question the integrity 
of  the  evaluators,  we  conclude  that  the  applicant’s  records 
should  be  corrected  to  substitute  the  revised  OPRs,  closing 
13 August  1993  and  4  June  1994,  for the ones  currently in his 
records and to afford him SSB consideration for the CY97C Central 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  and  for  all  boards  affected  by 
replacement of the cited OPRs. 

THE BOARD RECOMMEN DS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: 

a. The  Company  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report,  AF  Form 
707B, rendered  for the period  14 August  1992  through  13  August 
1993,  and  the  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance Report, AF  Form 
707A, rendered for the period 14 August 1993 through 4 June 1994, 
be declared void and removed from his records. 

b. The attached reaccomplished OPRs, AF  Form  707B, rendered 
for the period 14 August 1992 through 13 August 1993, and AF Form 
707A, rendered for the period 14 August 1993 through 4 June 1994, 
be inserted in his records in place of the voided OPRs. 

3 

98-00410 

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to 
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for 
the CY97C  (21 July 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and 
for  any  subsequent boards  for  which  the  revised  OPRs,  closing 
13 August 1993 and 4 June 1994, were not a matter of record. 

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: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 27 Feb 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Mar 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter from applicant, dated 3 Apr 98, w/atchs. 

DOUGLAS J. HEADY 
Panel Chair 

4 ,  

98-00410 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R   F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

‘ 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests the officer performance reports (OPRs) closing 

out 13 Aug 93 and 4 Jun 94 be replaced with corrected OPRs which reflect appropriate 
Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations. If the board agrees to replace the 
O P h ,  the appIicant requests consideration by the CY97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) central 
lieutenant colonel selection board. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the rater, additional rater and senior rater, who 
supervised his performance during the period of the two reports, acknowledge they erroneously 
omitted the PME statements. 

Recommendation. Time bar.  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[b]).  It is obvious that the errors claimed here were 
discoverable at the time they occurred.  The applicant provided nothing to convince us that the 
errors were not discoverable until Sep 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 Dehueiler v. Pena, 
38F.3d591 (D.C. Cir 1994)--which prevents application of the statute’s time bar if the applicant 
has filed within three years of separation or retirement. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is not timely.  The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied in part by the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).  A copy of the 19 Dec 97 memorandum 
announcing the ERAB’s decision is included in the applicant’s appeal package. 

b.  AFI 36-10, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the governing directive. 
The applicant has one nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0597C central 
selection board. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a personal brief and a copy of 

the package he submitted to the ERAB. 

d.  The applicant is attempting to convince the AFBCMR that two separate reports 

are in error because the rating chain did not include a recommendation for PME attendance. 
Evaluation reports are considered accurate as written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is 
provided.  For support, the applicant provides letters fiom the raters, additional raters, and 
reviewer of the contested reports.  Their letters would have us believe the missing 
recommendation for PME was due to official guidance and a belief that a recommendation for 
PME would constitute a promotion recommendation and was, therefore, proliibited.  AFR 36-10, 
Chapter 3, paragraph 7a, (AFI 36-2402, Figure 3.2, Line 17,)  states, “...recommendations to 
select for a particular assignment, PME, augmentation, continuation, or indefinite reserve status 
are appropriate.. .”  We would like to point out that research revealed other officers assigned to 
the same unit as the applicant received PME recommendations during the contested reporting 
periods.  While it may be argued that the omission of a recommendation for PME was inadvertent 
rather than intentional, the purpose of the appeal process is to correct errors or injustices.  The 
purpose is not to recreate history or to enhance one’s promotion potential.  Evaluation reports 
receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record.  Any report can be rewritten to 
be more hard hitting or to enhance a ratee’s potential.  However, the time to do that is before the 
report becomes a matter of record.  We would also point out that the PME recommendation 
statement which the applicant now wants added to the OPRs in question is optional, and its 
absence does not flaw the report. 

e .  The applicant contends that lack of “push” statements for PME were the cause of 
his nonselection for lieutenant colonel by the P0597C board.  We do not agree.  There is no clear 
evidence that it negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire 
officer 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 fiictors such as job performance, 
professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professiond 
military education.  A review of a sampling of selection records from the P0597C board revealed 
that not all officers with PME recommendations on their OPRs were selected for promotion by 
the board nor did all officers selected have consistent PME recommendations.  A PME 
recommendation statement is optional, and not a determining factor or guarantee of promotion 
selection by the promotion board.  The selection board had his entire officer selection record that 
clearly outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty.  We are not convinced 
the contested OPRs are erroneous and were the sole cause of the applicant’s nonselection. 

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

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

U 

980041 0 
. . -. . . . . . . . . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00410 

SEP  2 9  lB8 

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 1 16), it is directed that: 

cords of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
e corrected to show that: 

a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the 

period 14 August 1992 through 13 August 1993, and the Field Grade Officer Performance 
Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 14 August 1993 through 4 June 1994, be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

b.  The attached reaccomplished OPRs, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 

14 August 1992 through 13 August 1993, and AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 14 August 
1993 through 4 June 1994, be inserted in his records in place of the voided OPRs. 

It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel 
by a Special Selection Board for the CY97C (21 July 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, 
and for any subsequent boards for which the revised OPRs, closing 13 August 1993 and 4 June 
1994, were not a matter of record. 

&&t&zi&c 

Director 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

Attachment 
Reaccomplished OPRs 

- 

I  mru:  4J~n94 

295 

8. ORGANQAT",  COMMAND, LOCAlWN 

~ m :  14Aun93 
B. PAS CODE 
3rd Civil Ennjneer Squadron (PACAF),  Elmendorf AFB AK 
EtORFBBL , 
U.  UNIT MISSION DESCFUPTION 
Designs and constructs new facilities; operates and maintains facilities and utility systems; removes mow; 
provides real property, contingency operations support, and fhfighting Services for ten major commands 
. Maintains engineering and contingency mobility teams. 
and six 0- 
agencies o 
Manages $82 W o n  budge 
111.  JOB DESCRIPTION 1.  DUTY TITLE:  Chef, Heavy Repair 
activities Of V e r t i d  a d  horizontal construction shops 
2.  KEY  DUTIES, TAsKs, AND RESPONSIEWEB:  Responsible for 
including snow removal, grounds maintenance, airfield repair, facility construction, and pest management. 
Directs planning, material acquisition, scheduling, and cmtruction activities for entire 500-person work 
review meeting.  Coordinates Work Order Allocation Program for 12 organiZatio - and briefi each 
force with an anrmal budget in excess of  $20 million. Chairs weekly scheduling meeting and work order 
commander on work status bimonthly.  Carries out duties aad responsibilities of 
Chief of Operations in 
his absence.  Prime Base Engineer Emernencv Force CBEED Team 3 Officer in CBarg 
e. 
RI. IMPACT ON MISSION ACCOMPUSHMENt 
- Wing project officer for 1993 Commander-In-Cbiefs Installation Excellence Award 
-- Exceptional effort brought unprecedented honor to P,lmendorf by winning this &ost prestigious award 
- Reptedly led 100-man Prime BEEF team in force beddown and base recovery ekercises, culminating in 
flawless perfomce during the April 1994 PACAF/IG Operational Readiness I.&pxtion 
- Eamed Air Staff  recognition for implementing cutting edge technology in airfield snow and ice control 
- Advocated total quality approach to production and customer satisfaction; supported 350 self-help work 
orders, empowered comtruction teams that completed 202 work orders for wing and tenant organizations 
- Implemented objective squadron restructuring and downsiziug-demdned rank structure, military/civiliar 
mix.  and ensured full mission capability in all career fields 
V.  PERFORMANCE FACTORS 

tz 

MEETS 

DOES NOT 

MEET STANDARDS 

STANDARDS 

1. Job Knowkdga 
Has knowledge required to perform dutles effectively. 
StlJves t o  improve this knowledge. 
Applies knowledge to handle nonroutine situations. 

2.  Leadership Skllh 
Sets and enforces stsnderds.  Motivates subordinates.  Works well 
with others.  Fostera teamwork.  Displays Inltlatile.  Self-confident. 
Has respect and confidence of subordinates.  Fair and consistent 
In evaluation of subordinates. 

3. Rofedonal Qualities 
Exhlbits loyalty, dlsclpllne, dedication,  integdty, and honesty. 
Adheres to Air Form standards.  Accepts personal responSmility. 
Is fair and objeothre. 

4.  Organhaional Skllb 
Plans, coordinates, acheduierr,  and uses resources effectively. 
Schedules work for self and others equitably and effectively. 
Antlcipates and solves problems.  Meets wrrpenses. 

'.  -  n 

I 

U  DB 

6.  Judgment and Decisions 
Makes timely and accurate decislons.  Emphasizes loglc in 
decision rnakhg.  Retains composure In stressful situations. 
Recognizes opporurnitlea and acts to take advanmge of them. 

81dlh 

6. Communi- 
Ustens, spanks,  and writes effectively. 
I AF FORM 707A.  AUG 88 fEF lfjFEB93)  mw mmoN IS  ( M S O ~  

I 

FIELD GRADE OFFICER PERFORMANCE REPOR' 

Instructions 

! 

PII.  Rscommendotlo~ must  be  based  on  performance  and  the  potaptfa1  based  on  that performance.  Promotion 
wcommendatiom  are  prohibited.  Do not  conskier  or  comment on  wplplation  of  oc  ctnrdlmant  in  W E ,   advanced 
or  antloipated  promotion  recommendations  on  AE  Form  709,  OER  indorsement  levels,  family 
ducation,  pre*us 
Ictiv/tjes, marital  status,  race,  sex,  ethnic  origin,  age,  or  religion. 

Utor:  Fears  ywr evaluation  In Seatian  W  on  what  the officer  did,  how  well  he  or  she  did  it  and  how  the officer 
:ontributed  to mission  accomplishment.  Write  In  conciss *bpIlet'  format.  Your  comments  In  Saction  Vi  may  indude 
mmendations  for  augmentation or  assignment. 

Mmtlonal Rater:  Carefully  mview  t h ~  
If  you 
iisagree, you  may  ask  the  rater  to  review  his  or  her  evaluation.  You may not direct a change in the evskration.  If you 
id11 disagree  with  the  rater,  mark  "NONCONWR"  and  axpJain.  You  may  Include  recommcndatlons for  augmentation 
)r assignment. 

rater'a  evaluation  to  ensure  it  Is  accurate,  unbiased,  and  unlnflated. 

Mviewer:  CSrefuUy  review  the  rater's  and  additional  rater's  ratings  and  comments.  If their  waluatlons  are  accurate, 
Iribisssd, and  udnflatsd, mark  the  form  'CONCUR"  and  sign  the  form. 
If you  disagree with pmvlous evaluators,  you 
nay ask them  to  mvkw  their  evaluations.  You  may  not  direct  them  to  change  their  appraisals.  If  you  still  disagree 
vRh the additional  rater,  mark  "NONCONCUR"  and explain In  Section VIII.  Do not use 'NONCONCUR'  slmply to provide 
:ommiants on  the report. 
F FORM 701A. AUO 88 El7 !REVERSE) 

I. RATEE IDENTIFICATION DATA  (Rmd AFR 36- f0 camfu/lly Ireform