DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

I 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR98-00499 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Havingxeceived 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 
to include the Officer Performance Report, AF Form 70 
through 14 February 1997, reflecting "select this dynamic leader for 

SSS" in the Section VII, Additional Rater's Overall Assessment, be considered for promotion to 
the grade of lieutenant colonel by  Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year  1997C Central 
Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

r 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RE 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00499 
COUNSEL :  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  The  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) closing  14 February 
1997 be replaced with a reaccomplished report. 

2.  The  Performance  Recommendation  Form  (PRF) reviewed  by  the 
Calendar Year  1997  (CY97) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be 
replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. 
3 .   He be granted Special Selection Board consideration for the 
Calendar Year 1997 (CY971 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
When  he  met  the  CY97  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  the 
additional rater's  inappropriate Professional Military Education 
(PME) recommendation and the rater's  missing PME statement on his 
OPR  may  have  created *  a  negative  effect  on  his  promotion 
opportunity.  The Evaluation Report Appeal Board  ( E m )  corrected 
the  OPR  to  include  in  the  additional  rater's  statement  a 
recommendation  for  Senior  Service  School  ( S S S )   instead  of 
Intermediate  Service  School  (ISS) . 
The  OPR  and  PRF  also 
inadvertently  omitted  a  significant  leadership  accomplishment, 
"1996 PACAF ATC Complex of the Year."  The ERAB stated that the 
documentation presented did not confirm when the PACAF award was 
announced.  Since  the  nomination  letter  was  dated  24 February 
1997, they believe the PACAF award could not have been included 
in the report.  It was the decision of the ERAB not to substitute 
a corrected OPR or to modify the PRF. 

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of the 
package submitted to E m .  
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. 

The  applicant  submitted  a  similar  appeal  under  AFI  36-2401 
Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  which  was 
denied  in  part  by  the  ERAB. 
Their  decision  was  to 
administratively correct the OPR  to  reflect the appropriate PME 
recommendation in the additional rater's  comments. 

The applicant has one nonselection by the CY97C central selection 
board. 

The following is a resume of his OPRs since promotion to major. 

PERIOD ENDING 
7 Auq 1994 
25 JUG 1995 
25 Jun 1996 
"14 Feb 1997 

*Contested report 

OVERALL EVALUATION 
Meets Standard (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Recorder,  Officer  Evaluation  Boards, AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed 
the  application  and  stated  that  the  senior  rater  is  solely 
responsible for reviewing the ratee's  record of performance and 
preparing the PRF.  In the applicant's  case, the award could not 
have been placed in his 14 February 1997 OPR since the award was 
not  officially announced by  PACAF until  24 February  1997.  The 
senior rater could have used other reliable information that was 
available at the time of the PRF preparation; however, there is 
no requirement in AFI  36-2402 that requires the senior rater to 
use the information.  The applicant had two avenues to pursue to 
clarify his PRF.  He could have  approached the senior rater  to 
request  the  award  be  added  to  the  PRF;  second,  he  had  the 
opportunity to write the board president  to  address his concern 
about the  importance of  the award  and  the  inability to have  it 
included in his OPR and/or PRF.  Since he is requesting a PRF re- 
write, he must have the concurrence of both the senior rater and 
the Management Level Review Board  (MLRB) president.  He has not 
provided a new form from his senior rater or concurrence from the 
MLRB  president. 
Based  on  the  evidence  submitted,  DPPPEB 
recommends the request be denied. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application  and  stated  that  it  is  Air  Force  policy  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.  The statement of support from  the 
rater of  the  14 February 1997 OPR  states "In my  effort to  add 
emphasis  to  his  selection  to  the  ACC/IG  team,  the  PME 

2 

AFBCMR. 98-00499 

recommendation was not stated."  This indicates the rater made a 
conscious  decision  to  omit  the  PME  statement  in an  attempt  to 
emphasize  an  achievement  he  felt  more  important  than  the  PME 
recommendation.  The  appeal  process  is  to  correct  errors  or 
injustices. 
Not  to  recreate  history  or  to  enhance  one's 
promotion potential.  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.  They 
also pointed out that the PME recommendation statement which the 
applicant now wants added to the OPR is optional and its absence 
does not flaw the report.  The applicant's  contention concerning 
the  omission of  the MAJCOM  award  on  both  the  OPR  and  PRF  are 
unfounded.  It is not mandatory  to mention receipt of a MAJCOM 
level award on either an OPR or a PRF.  The rater alone has been 
given the charge to assess and document what the officer did, how 
well he did it, and his potential based on that performance.  The 
ERAB  granted  an  administrative  change  to  the  applicant's  OPR. 
This  minor  change  does  not  warrant  SSB  consideration.  Each 
officer  considered  by  the  CY97C  board  received  detailed 
instructions  for  review  of  this  preselection  briefs  and 
associated records.  Officers will not be considered by SSB if, 
in  exercising  reasonable  diligence,  the  officer  should  have 
discovered an error or omission in his/her records and could have 
taken timely corrective action.  Based on the evidence provided, 
they strongly recommend denying the applicant's  request. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR  FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  applicant  reviewed  the  evaluations  and  responded  that AFPC 
acknowledged it corrected one of the errors on his OPR; however, 
they justified denial of SSB with a claim that there was no clear 
evidence  it  negatively  impacted  his  promotion  opportunity. 
Although  AFPC  could  provide  data  to  support  its  position,  it 
chose only to provide anecdotal evidence because hard data would 
only support his position and not theirs.  Various MAJCOM Officer 
Evaluation  System  (OES) guides  have  long  acknowledged  that  a 
missing  PME  statement  is  a  negative  on  an  OPR,  and  has  been 
confirmed by board members.  Additionally, AFPC has granted SSBs 
when  a PME level was  the only correction made,  and  the officer 
was selected  (see 94-03592).  They have not provided a scintilla 
of proof that this error was not or could not be persuasive; such 
decision should be  left  to  a  duly  convened SSB, which he  asks 
this  board  to  direct.  The  AFPC  position  that  he  didn't  act 
promptly  or  exercise due diligence  is without  foundation.  How 
could he  have  corrected the  contested  report  in three and one- 
half months when  it has already taken seven months  to  get  half 
way through this appeal.  The partial correction of the errors in 
the contested report leave at least two major flaws.  There is no 
comment  about  the  selection of  the  Kadena Air  Traffic  Control 
Facility as "Best in PACAF."  His rater's  PME recommendation has 

3 

AFBCMR 98-00499 

not been added as he has requested.  He  contends the AFBCMR now 
has the statutory duty and obligation to grant whatever relief is 
necessary. 
AFPC  still  chooses  to  quibble  about  how  his 
additional rater could have added the fact that his ATC facility 
was recognized as "Best in PACAF."  They continue to focus on the 
close-out  date,  not  the  signature  dates  of  the  report.  The 
original OPR  was  signed by  the  additional rater on 24 February 
1997.  The PACAF awards had clearly been made before 24 February 
1997  as  the  results  were  forwarded  to  HQ  USAF  for  Air  Force 
competition on 24 February 1997.  No  doubt,  there was  informal 
communication already in progress between HQ PACAF and his unit 
at Kadena AB.  This occurred while he was in transit to Langley 
AFB  so  he  had  no  way  to  insure  all  his  evaluators  had  this 
information for his  OPR  and  PRF;  apparently it was  overlooked. 
Board  members  need  to  ask  themselves  if  this  information  was 
significant and was it available to the additional rater when he 
indorsed the OPR.  The answers to both questions are YES.  This 
was  indeed recognition of a major  leadership accomplishment and 
was appropriate for inclusion in the report.  AFPC  acknowledges 
the  purpose  of  the  appeal  process  is  to  correct  errors  or 
injustices.  It fails to recognize the injustice he  suffered by 
reason of the rater's  omission of the PME recommendation and the 
additional rater's  inappropriate ISS recommendation.  AFPC  also 
fails to recognize that the purpose of the appeal process is to 
enhance an  officer's  promotion potential  if  that  potential  was 
unrealistically diminished by  the  actions of  others.  The  real 
issue is whether his record would have been more competitive with 
the proper  SSS  recommendation than  it  was  without  it.  In the 
process of trying to  further his career opportunity, his rating 
chain unintentionally sent the wrong message to future promotion 
boards that he was only ready for ISS as a major when, in fact, 
he had already completed that curriculum.  He should not be made 
to suffer for their mistake. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application  and  states  that  applicant  has  failed  to  include 
credible evidence to convince them that his record was erroneous 
when  it met  the  CY97C  board.  Therefore,  they  reiterate  their 
recommendation to  deny  the  application and  do not  believe  that 
SSB consideration is warranted. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  provides  his 
comments at Exhibit I. 

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 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence presented, we are not persuaded 
that the omission of the rater's  recommendation for professional 
military  education  (PME) on  the  contested  Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR) or the omission of the PACAF award on both contested 
reports hindered applicant's chances for promotion.  The  letter 
from  the  rater  indicates  that  he  concentrated  on  specific 
accomplishments which he  felt were more  important than the  PME 
recommendation.  Contrary  to  applicant's  assertions,  we  find 
insufficient  evidence  that  the  omission  of  the  rater's  PME 
recommendation on the contested report was the sole cause of his 
nonselection.  Further,  we  note  that  it  is  not  mandatory  to 
mention a MAJCOM level award on either an OPR or a PRF; therefore 
this  omission  does  not  cause  these  reports  to  be  flawed. 
Further,  it  is  the  rater  who  determines  which  accomplishments 
will be included on evaluation reports.  In view of the above, we 
find  that  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of 
establishing the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice 
warranting  favorable  action  on  his  requests  to  replace  the 
contested reports. 
4.  Notwithstanding  the  above  finding,  a majority  of  the  Board 
believes that some form of relief is warranted.  In this respect, 
the Board majority notes that the Evaluation Report Appeal Board 
( E M )  corrected  the  contested  OPR  by  changing  the  additional 
rater's  PME recommendation from ISS to SSS.  This correction was 
approved  after  the  Calendar  Year  1997C  selection  board  was 
convened.  While it cannot be conclusively determined whether or 
not the absence of the correct level of PME was the sole reason 
for  applicant's  nonselection  for  promotion  by  the  board  in 
question,  a  majority  of  the  Board  believes  that  it  served  to 
deprive him  of  fair and  equitable  consideration.  Therefore,  a 
majority  of  the  Board  recommends  his  corrected  record  be 
considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, to include the Officer Performance Report, 
AF  Form  707A,  rendered  for  the  period  26 June  1996  through 
14 February 1997, reflecting "select this dynamic leader f o r   SSS" 
in  the  Section VII,  Additional  Rater's  Overall  Assessment,  be 
considered  for promotion to  the  grade  of  lieutenant colonel by 
Special  Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year  1997C  Central 
Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on  23  June  and  29  September  1998, under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Mr. Loren S.  Perlstein, Member 

By  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as 
recommended.  Mr.  Gracie voted  to  deny  applicant's  request but 
does not wish to submit a minority report. 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 

DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 98, with atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 2 Mar 98. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 6 Mar 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Mar 98. 
Applicant's  Letter, dated 4 May 98. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 12 Aug 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 98. 
Applicant's response, dated 2 Sep 98, w/atch. 

WAYNE R. GRACIE 
Panel Chair 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

SUBJE 

on of Military Records. 

This memorandum will address the applicant’s rebuttal comments to our 6 Mar 98 

advisory.  The applicant provided documentation in this appeal that is virtually identical to that 
which we have repeatedly reviewed with other appeals and have found to be nothing more than 
unsubstantiated conjecture.  We do not believe the information included is an individual creation 
of the applicant, but rather, acquired from unidentified  counsel.  The PRF issue was adequately 
addressed in HQ AFPCDPPPEP’s advisory.  We will address the applicant’s other comments. 

The applicant references the name and docket number of an individual to whom we granted 
an Special Selection Board (SSB) when a change to the PME level was the only change made to 
the OPR.  While it is true we granted the applicant an SSB, we did so as an exception to policy 
based on an error in our notification process-not the correction to the level of PME on the OPR. 
In the applicant’s instance, no error of that nature has occurred.  Omission of a recommendation 
for PME is not an error.  This issue was addressed adequately in our original advisory and 
requires no hrther discussion. 

The applicant’s contention we claimed he had sufficient time to correct his OPR before the 

Jul 97 board is unfounded.  We never stated we could have had the OPR corrected prior to the 
board.  We stated he failed to do everything he could have, for example, write a letter to the 
P0597C board president, prior to the selection board, to ensure his record was accurate.  Since 
he was aware of the accomplishment some five months prior to the P0597C board, and the 
achievement was not on his OPR, it was his responsibility to ensure the board was aware of the 
achievement if he felt it important to his promotion consideration.  His failure to write the board 
president resulted in the board not knowing about the achievement.  The omission is not an error. 
In fact, AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Jul 96, para  1.4.5, states in part, “If an 
incident occurs between the time the report closes and the time it becomes a matter of record that 
is of such gravity it cannot be ignored, an extension of the closeout date may be warranted.  HQ 
AFPCDPPPEP retains the authority to extend  a closeout date ....”  We contacted HQ 
AFPC/DPPPEP to ascertain whether or not this event would have been a reason to extend the 
closeout date of the report.  They informed us that only incidents of a negative nature are 
considered under this provision; therefore, a request of this nature would have been disapproved. 

The applicant failed to include any credible evidence to convince us his record was 

erroneous when it met the P0597C board.  We, therefore, stand by our original recommendation 
of denial and do not believe SSB consideration is warranted. 

,  MARIANNE STERLING, Lt coi, WAF 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

- 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4709 

MEMORANDUM FOR SAFMIBR 
AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPEB 

- 

I 

I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL  CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

\ 

SUBJECT:  Applicant for Correction of Military Records - 

Requested Action:  The applicant is requesting his CY97  Lt Col (LAF) Promotion 
Recommendation Form (PRF) be re-written to include a 1996 MAJCOM level award. 

Basis of Request:  Applicant received a MAJCOM level award, 1996 PACAF ATC 
Complex of the Year, prior to the CY97 Lt Col (LAF) Central Selection Board (CSB) 
which was not included on the applicant’s PRF. 

Facts:  The applicant received a “P” promotion recommendation on his CY97 PRF and 
was nonselected for promotion to Lt Colonel, 

Discussion:  We will only address the technical aspects of this case as they pertain to the 
applicant’s CY97 Lt Col (LAF) PRF.  Per AFI 36-2402, Oficer Evaluation System, (Jul 
96), 4.4, the senior rater is solely responsible for reviewing the ratee’s record of 
performance and preparing the PFW. 

In the applicant’s case, the award could not have been placed in his 14 Feb 97 OPR since 
the award was not officially announced by PACAF until 24 Feb 97; however, per AFI 36- 
2402 4.4.1.1 ,.  the senior rater could have used other reliable information that was 
available at the time of the PRF preparation (22 May 97 being the earliest the senior rater 
could sign the PRF). In the applicant’s case, the information regarding the award was 
available based upon the announcement date of 24 Feb 97; however, there is no 
requirement in AFI 36-2402 that requires the senior rater to use this information. 

In this case, the applicant had two avenues to pursue in order to clarify his PRF.  First, 
upon receiving his PRF 30 days prior to the CSB (approximately 20 Jun 97), the 
applicant could have approached the senior rater to request the award be added to the PRF 
since the award was based upon reliable information not found in an OPR.  Second, the 
applicant had the opportunity to write the CSB president to address his concern about the 
importance of the award and the inability to have it included in his 14 Feb 97 OPR and/or 
the PRF. 

I 

9800499 

. . . . . . . 

Since the applicant is requesting a PRF re-write, he must, per AFI 36-2401 para 1.3.6, 
Correcting Oflcer and Enlisted Performance Reports, have both the senior rater’s 
concurrence and the MLR president.  In this case, the applicant has not provided a new 
PRF from his CY97 Lt Col (LAF) senior rater or concurrence from CY97 Lt Col (LAF) 
PACAF MLR president. 

’ 

Recommendation: A PRF is considered to be an accurate assessment of the officer’s 
performance when the PRF is rendered.  Per AFI 36-2402, o f f e r  Evahation System, the 
senior rater, by reviewing an officer’s Record of Performance and other reliable 
information, is solely responsible for the information placed into the PRF.  Presently, the 
applicant does not have the support of either his CY97 Lt Col (LAF) senior rater or 
PACAF MLR president to change the contents of the PRJ?.  As stated, there is no 
requirement in AFI 36-2402 which requires inclusion of the applicants 1996 award.  The 
original PRF should stand since the narrative comments in Section IV, Promotion 
Recommendation, provided an assessment of the officer’s performance which supports 
the “Promote” recommendation given in Section IX, Overall Recommendation. 

M.  DEVILLIER, capt, USAF 

Recorder, USAF Officer Evaluation Boards 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

9800499 
-  . . . . . . . . . . . . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
RmdolphAFB TX  78150-4710 

- 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests special selection board (SSB) consideration by 
the CY97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) central lieutenant colonel promotion boaid with the inclusion 
of a revised promotion recommendation form (PRF) and officer performance report (OPR). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant was the recipient of a MAJCOM-level award, but no 

mention was ever made of the award on his  14 Feb 97 OPR or PO597 PRF.  Further, he contends 
a recommendation to attend professional military education (PME) was inadvertently omitted 
from the rater’s comments in Section VI of the contested OPR.  Although the ERAB directed 
correction of the applicant’s 14 Feb 97 OPR in Section VI1 (changed ISS to SSS), they declined 
his request for consideration by an SSB.  The applicant believes this correction warrants 
promotion reconsideration. 

Recommendation, Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

- 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFT 36- 
240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Performance Reports, which was denied in part by the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) 12 Jan 98.  A copy of the ERAB’s decision 
memorandum is included in the applicant’s appeal package. 

I 

b. AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Jul96, is the governing directive. 

The applicant has one nonselection to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0597C central 
selection board. 

25 Jun 96 and 14 Feb 97 OPRs; a copy of a memorandum from his rater; a‘copy of a 

c.  In support of his appeal the applicant includes a personal brief; copies of his 
finm niitnide the rating chain; a copy of the P0597C PRF; and a copy of the 

- - - n r 9 n ~ l m  

I 

or voided.  To effectively challenge an OPR, it is important to hear fiom 4 the evaluators on the 
contested report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. The applicant provided a 
statement of support from the rater of the 14 Feb 97 OPR.  The letter states, “In my effort to add 
emphasis to his selection to the ACC [Air Combat Command] IG [Inspector General] team, the 
PME recommendation was not stated.” This statement indicates the rater made a conscious 
decision to omit the PME statement in the attempt to emphasize an achievement he felt more 
important than the PME recommendation, In addition, 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.. .”  While it may be argued that the omission of a 
recommendation for PME in Section VI of the OPR 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 OPR in question is optional, and its absence does not flaw the report. 
We, therefore, are opposed to the applicant receiving SSB consideration on this issue. 

e.  The applicant states, “...it is common knowledge the absence of a PME 

recommendation on an OPR transmits a negative signal to board members.”  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 factors such as job 
performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic 
and professional 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.  As noted above, a PME recommendation statement is optional, and not a 
determining factor or guarantee of promotion selection.  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 omission of the PME statement from the OPR was the 
sole cause of the applicant’s nonselection. 

f.  We concur with the advisory written by HQ AFPCDPPPEB.  The 

applicant’s contention concerning the omission of the MAJCOM award on both the 14 Feb 97 
OPR and the P0597C PRF are dounded. It is not mandatory tu mention receipt of a MAJCOM 
level award on either an OPR or a PRF, nor is the report dawed simply because the ratee thinks it 
is. We would like to stress it is the rater, not the ratee, who determines which accomplishments 
will be included on evaluation reports (the senior rater for PRFs).  The rater alone has been given 
the charge to assess and document what the officer did, how well he did it, and his potential 
based on that performance. 

outlined what was needed fiom the applicant to proceed with his appeal in regard to the PRF. 

g.  The ERAB’s decision memorandum was very explicit.  They, in detail, 

9800499 

We contend the applicant did not take the time to contact his senior rater and Management Level 
Review president to obtain the required evaluator support, or perhaps he did contact them, and 
they refused to honor his request to change the PRF.  We, therefore, contend the PRF is not 
erroneous, but was accomplished in direct accordance with the applicable Air Force directives. 

h.  The ERAB granted an administrative change to the applicant’s 14 Feb 97 
OPR in section VII.  They changed “ISS” to “SSS.”  This minor change does not warrant SSB 
consideration.  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 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 considered by SSB if, in exercising reasonable 
diligence, the officer should have discovered an error or omission in hisher records and could 
have taken timely corrective action.  The applicant was aware the “1 996 PACAF ATC Complex 
of the Year” award was not reflected on his OPR and PRF, and presumably was aware of the 
omitted PME statement and inappropriate level of PME recommendation on the 14 Feb 97 OPR. 
If he believed those issues to be important to his promotion consideration, the perfect avenue for 
him to address them would have been to write a letter to the board president of the P0597C 
board.  However, we do not find any record the applicant wrote such a letter to the board 
president.  We strongly recommend denying the applicant’s request for SSB consideration on 
these issues. 

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

Further, we do not believe SSB consideration is warranted. 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

I 

9800499 

- _ . .  . . -