DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00521 

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: 

ds of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
be  corrected to  show that  the  Officer  Perform 

Form  707A, rendered for the period  14 February  1995 through  14 June  1995, be  amended in 
Section IV, Impact on Mission Accomplishment, by deleting comments and replacing them with 
the following: 

-Superior achievement in all mission areas--when involved efficiency, timeliness and success 

are assured 

for treatment 

operational unit 

gastric disease 

technologies 

valuable asset 

contractor costs 

--Successfully resolved many direct patient care problem cases--established accurate basis 

--Directed a complex forensic investigation-findings directly improved safety of an Army 

--Published 3  abstracts and  one  peer  reviewed  article--enhanced understanding of  a  rare 

-Yaluable resource in planning, development, fielding and sustainment of advanced medical 

--Transformed AFIP into the most recognized Telepathology center nationwide--created a 

--Planned, developed, and deployed telepathology system--saved in excess of $450,000 in 

--Established  Internet  diagnostic  video  computer  link  to  Japan--no  dial-up  lines, 

--Recognized as lead expert in Telemedicine--his assistance and expertise sought by  sister 

tremendous cost savings 

services/agencies. 

It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by 
Special  Selection  Boards  for  the  Calendar  Year  199514 through  1997A  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Medical Corps Promotion Boards. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00521 
COUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

a

.

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) rendered  for  the  period 
14 February  1995  through  14  June  1995,  be  replaced  with  a 
reaccomplished report covering the same period. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  contested  report  is  an  inaccurate  assessment  of  his 
performance during the contested period. 

The  applicant  states  that  Sections  I11  (Job Description),  IV 
(Impact  on  Mission  Accomplishment) ,  and  VI  (Rater  Overall 
Assessment) of the OPR contains incorrect statements. 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from 
the  rater, statement from  the  CAP  Administrator, the  contested 
report, reaccomplished report, and the Evaluation Reports Appeal 
Board application, w/atchs. 

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 Ma] or. 

Applicant  was considered and  not  selected  for promotion  to  the 
grade of  lieutenant colonel by  the CY95  (6 November 1 9 9 5 ) ,   CY96 
(12 November 1996), and CY97 (5 November 1997) Selection Boards. 

The applicant appealed the contested report f o u r   times under the 
provisions  of  AFI  36-2401 and  the  appeals  were  considered  and 
denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB). 

98-00521 

OER/OPR profile since 1992, follows: 

- 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

1 3   Feb 92 
13 Feb 93 
13 Feb 94 
1 3   Feb 95 
14 Jun 95 
1 4   Jun 96 
1 4   Jun 97 

* 

*  Contested report 

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed 
the  application  and  states  that  reports  are  restricted  from 
containing  information  that  occurred  outside  the  reporting 
period.  It is permissible to correct the report by removing only 
the  prohibited  information  and  replacing  it  with  achievements 
which  did  occur  during  the  period.  There  are  accomplishments 
mentioned in the disputed OPR that were achieved by the applicant 
prior to the reporting period of 14 February 1995 -  1 4   June 1995 
and documented in a previous OPR closing 13 February 1995.  Since 
the applicant was performing the same job, it is possible to have 
repeated or  similar accomplishments in a  subsequent OPR.  They 
also  note  the  duty  title  on  both  the  original  and  the 
reaccomplished report is not accurate.  Applicant's correct duty 
title is  "Staff Pathologist."  Therefore, the title on the  IInew" 
version is incorrect.  The rater's administrative officer admits 
he  prepared  the  OPR  based  on  the  ratee's previous  evaluation. 
This practice  is inappropriate and unauthorized.  The rater has 
acknowledged the error and reaccomplished the OPR.  They defer to 
AFPC/DPPPA for the appropriate resolution of this case. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel 
Program Management, HQ  AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed  the  application and 
states  that  in  comparing  the  contested  OPR  with  the  previous 
13 February  1995, OPR,  it  does  appear  the  rater's comments on 
that report are almost verbatim to those of the rater's comments 
on the contested report.  The rater on the contested report was 
also  in  the  applicant's rating  chain  for  the  two  previously 
rendered reports.  If the comments on the contested report were 
inaccurate at  the  time  it  was  rendered, they  question  why  the 
rater did not make the necessary changes to the comments when it 
was  rendered. 
They  reviewed  the  contested  report  with  the 
reaccomplished version, and, as noted by the E W E ,  the duty title 
and  job  description  in  section  I11  and  Impact  on  Mission 

2 

98-00521 

. 

unfamiliar 

with 

his 

duty 

performance 

Accomplishment in Section IV on the reaccomplished OPR have been 
completely reworded.  The changes to these three items have not 
been  adequately and specifically explained by  the rater.  Since 
the  rater  was  the  additional  rater  on  the  applicant's  two 
previous  OPRs,  they  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  she  was 
completely 
and 
accomplishments when  it  came time to prepare  the  contested OPR. 
They would not object to correcting section IV of the contested 
OPR  to reflect  the  comments  to  those  that  are  included  on  the 
reaccomplished report.  However, they do not support changing the 
duty title, job description, and Impact on Mission Accomplishment 
blocks until the rater has adequately and specifically explained 
the  changes  as  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA  has  requested  on  four  separate 
occasions.  In the rater's 1 8   February 1997 letter, we note she 
states, "It was discovered that the report contained incomplete 
information  (that information had  been  provided  by  the  member 
outside  the  reporting  period) . 
This  statement  is  somewhat 
confusing.  The  applicant  states  he  had  departed  for his  new 
assignment prior  to  the  time  the  OPR  was  written  and  was  not 
given  the  "ability to  have  input  into  the  OPR."  Is  the  rater 
saying the applicant provided inputs for the contested OPR, and 
if so, was the information provided for accomplishments occurring 
outside  the  rating  period?  If  the  answer  is  l'yes,II  then  we 
question the validity of both statements from the rater and the 
applicant.  If  the  answer  is  Irno," the  applicant  should obtain 
clarification from the rater. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
counsel on 27 April 1 9 9 8 ,   for review and response within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

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 
warranting  a  change  in  Section  IV  (Impact  on  Mission 
Accomplishment) of  the  contested OPR  closing  14  June  1995.  In 
this  respect, we  note  that  the  rater  has  submitted  a  statement 
indicating  that  the  applicant's  accomplishments were  not  listed 
on  the  contested  report.  The  comments  in  Section  IV  of  the 
reaccomplished  report  appear  to  more  accurately  describe 

9 8 - 0 0 5 2 1  

applicant's  contributions.  We  note  that  the  Air  Force  also 
believes  that  the  comments  in  question  should  be  replaced. 
Therefore, we  recommend that  the  comments in Section IV of  the 
contested  report  be  removed  and  replaced  with  the  comments 
provided on the reaccomplished report.  In addition, we recommend 
his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant  colonel  by  Special  Selection  Boards  (SSBs) for  the 
CY95 through CY97 selection boards.. 

4.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting voidance of the contested OPR closing 14 June 1995 and 
replacing  it  with  the  reaccomplished  report  covering  the  same 
period.  We  note  that  the  reaccomplished report  is  completely 
different  from  the  original  report  and,  as  stated  by  the  Air 
Force,  the  changes  have  not  been  adequately  and  specifically 
explained  by  the  rater.  We  suggest that  the  applicant  obtain 
more detailed comments from the rater as to why the changes have 
been made and also address the errors that have been noted on the 
reaccomplished  report by  the Air  Force.  In view  of  our  above 
determination and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we 
find  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on 
applicant's  request to have the contested OPR voided and replaced 
with the reaccomplished report provided with this appeal. 

5.  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.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Officer 
Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707A,  rendered  for  the  period 
14 February 1995 through 14 June 1995, be amended in Section IV, 
Impact  on  Mission  Accomplishment,  by  deleting  comments  and 
replacing them with the following: 

-Superior  achievement  in  all  mission  areas--when  involved 

efficiency, timeliness and success are assured 

--Successfully  resolved  many  direct  patient  care  problem 

cases--established accurate basis for treatment 

--Directed  a  complex  forensic  investigation-findings 

directly improved safety of an Army operational unit 

--Published  3  abstracts  and  one  peer  reviewed  article-- 

enhanced understanding of a rare gastric disease 

9 8 - 0 0 5 2 1  

-Valuable  resource  in  planning,  development,  fielding  and 

sustainment of advanced medical technologies 

--Transformed  AFIP  into  the  most  recognized Telepathology 

center nationwide--created a valuable asset 

--Planned,  developed,  and  deployed  telepathology  system-- 

saved in excess of $450,000 in contractor costs 

--Established  Internet  diagnostic  video  computer  link  to 

Japan--no dial-up lines, tremendous cost savings 

--Recognized as lead expert in Telemedicine--his assistance 

and expertise sought by sister services/agencies. 

It is further directed that he be  considered for promotion to 
the grade of  lieutenant colonel by  Special Selection Boards for 
the Calendar Year 1995A through 1997A Lieutenant Colonel Medical 
Corps Promotion Boards. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  28  July  1998, under  the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 February 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C . ,   Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 14 April 1998. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 April 1998. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 April 1998. 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  F O R C E  PERSONNEL  C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE B A S E  T E X A S  

17 APR 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

Requested Action.  The applicant, a medical corps (MC) officer, through counsel (hereafter 

referred to as the applicant), requests replacement of his 14 Jun 95 officer performance report 
(OPR) with a reaccomplished version. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant states the contested OPR was based on incomplete and 
inaccurate information.  He states it contains incorrect statements in Sections HI, IV, and VI. 

Recommendation.  See Summary below.  If the AFBCMR decides in favor of the applicant, 

then promotion reconsideration by the following boards would be appropriate (even though the 
applicant has not specifically requested it on his DD Form 149):  CY95 (6 Nov 95) (M0595A), 
CY96 (12 Nov 96) (M0596A), and CY97 (5 Nov 97) (M0597A) lieutenant colonel medical corps 
promotion boards. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely filed,  Four similar applications were submitted under 
MI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  In each case, the Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board ( E M )  was not convinced by the applicant’s documentation and denied 
each appeal.  A copy of each of HQ AFPCLDPPPAE’s decision letters is included with this 
current appeal. 

b.  The governing directive is AFR 36-10, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88. 

c.  The applicant has three nonselections by the M0595A, M0596A, MO597A boards. 

d.  HQ AFPCKIPPPE, has provided a technical advisory, dated 14 Apr 98.  We add 

the following for the AFBCMR’s consideration. 

e.  The applicant contends he left the organization prior to the OPR being rendered 
and was unable to provide inputs into the OPR.  As a result, the administrative assistant to the 
rater prepared the OPR “to the best of his ability based upon previous OPR’s (sic) that had been 
written ....”  As a result, the applicant has appealed four times under AFI 36-2401. 

(1) On his second appeal, HQ AFPCDPPPA advised the applicant’s servicing 
military ‘personnel flight (MPF) in their decision letter that the rater’s statement indicated the 
report was flawed because it contained information provided by the member outside the rating 
period.  HQ AFPCDPPPA states, “It also appears the rater took this opportunity to reaccomplish 
the entire report, rather than remove the erroneous information, in an attempt to ‘rewrite history’ 
and make the report stronger. Detailed explanations of what information in the report is in error, 
why it is in error, and why it is necessary to correct it, are required before the Board can 
reconsider this request.” 

(2)  On the applicant’s third AFI 36-2401 appeal, he provided another letter, dated 
26 Jun 97, from the rater in which she identifies the sections on the OPR that are in error, but she 
offers no detailed explanation on each section outlining specifically what was in error on each. 
Again, HQ AFPCDPPPA advised the applicant’s MPF (see letter dated 3 1 Jul97) that the 
ERAB had disapproved the appeal and stated that the rater’s letter did not include the specitic 
information previously discussed.  In addition to the rater’s letter, the applicant provided a letter 
fiom the administrative assistant who prepared the OPR for the rater’s signature.  HQ AFPC/ 
DPPPA explained the administrative assistant’s response only addressed one small portion of the 
OPR, but the ERAB noted the entire report had been rewritten.  They state, “What is known now 
that wasn’t known when he rendered the contested report that constitutes a total rewrite?  Specific 
information is required.” 

(3)  On the applicant’s fourth AFI 36-2401 appeal, the applicant provided no new 

substantial documentation other than a letter fiom his attorney,  Once again, the ERAB denied 
the appeal because no yeczjjc information was provided by the rater with this appeal.  (See HQ 
AFPCIDPPPA’s letter, dated 7 Nov 97.) 

f.  In comparing the contested OPR with the previous 13 Feb 95 OPR, it does appear 
the rater’s comments on the 13 Feb 95 OPR are almost verbatim to those of the rater’s comments 
on the contested report.  However, we note the rater on the contested report was also in the 
applicant’s rating chain for the two previously rendered reports.  If the comments on the 
contested report were inaccurate at the time it was rendered, we question why the rater did not 
make the necessary changes to the comments when it was rendered.  Further, we reviewed the 
contested report with the reaccomplished version, and, as noted by the E M ,  the duty title and 
job description in section I11 and Impact on Mission Accomplishment in Section IV on the 
reaccomplished OPR have been completely reworded.  The changes to these three items have not 
been adequately and specifically explained by the rater.  Since the rater was the additional rater 
on the applicant’s two previous OPR, we find it difficult to believe that she was completely 
unfamiliar with his duty performance and accomplishments when it came time to prepare the 
contested OPR.  However, based on the technical flaw noted in HQ AFPCDPPPEP’s advisory, 
we would not object to correcting section IV of the contested OPR to reflect the comments to 
those that are included on the reaccomplished report.  However, we do not support changing the 
duty title, job description, and Impact on Mission Accomplishment blocksunti1 the rater has 
adequately and specifically explained the changes as HQ AFPCIDPPPA has requested on four 
separate occasions. 

2 

, ”  

f 

g.  The applicant states, “The Board [ E M ]  previously indicated that (the applicant) 
had not provided enough specific errors in his previous packages.  However, if the Board looks at 
the specific section involved and the OPR that is being submitted by (the rater), it is clear what 
the errors are.”  It is not incumbent on the ERAB to determine what alleged errors were made or 
why they were made when the report was rendered. Rather, the burden of proof is on the 
applicant, and he has been given four previous opportunities to provide the specific information 
that is required and necessary to challenge the validity of the report, and he has not done so. 

h.  In the rater’s 18 Feb 97 letter, we note she states, “It was discovered that the report 

contained incomplete infomation (that information had been provided by the member outside 
the reporting period).”  This statement is somewhat confusing. The applicant states he had 
departed for his new assignment prior to the time the OPR was written and was not given the 
“ability to have input into the OPR.”  Is the rater saying the applicant provided inputs for the 
contested OPR, and if so, was the information provided for accomplishments occurring outside 
the rating period?  If the answer is “yes,” then we question the validity of both statements from 
the rater and the applicant.  If the answer is “no,” the applicant should obtain clarification from 
the rater. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided and HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s findings, we believe 

our recommendation in paragraph f is appropriate. 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

3 

9800521 

. . . . . . . . .. 

. . 

e 

- 

FROM:  HQ AFPCLDPPPEP 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4709 

MEMORANDUM FOR  SAF/AFBCMR 

DEPARTMENT O F  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE B A S E  TEXAS 

I 4  APR  1998 

SUBJ:  Application for Correction of Military Records, 

REQUESTED ACTION:  Applicant requests the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing out 
14 Jun 95 be replaced with a rewritten OPR. 

BASIS FOR REQUEST:  Applicant bases this request on the allegation the OPR was based on 
“incomplete and inaccurate information” and that it contains incorrect statements in several sec- 
tions. 

BACKGROUND:  Applicant has requested four times for his OPR, which closed out on  14 Jun 
95, to be  removed from his record and replaced with a new OPR his rater has prepared.  His 
contention is that the OPR in his record dbes not reflect his current accomplishments.  Rather, 
the  rater  used  statements  almost  verbatim  from  a  previously  rendered  OPR.  The  Air  Force 
Evaluation Report Appeals Board ( E M )  has denied his appeal each time. 

FACTS:  The applicant’s rater has provided a letter stating her administrative officer prepared 
the  14 Jm 95 OPR using incomplete information.  An  OPR that is made a matter of record is 
considered to be an accurate assessment of the ratee, unless evaluators in the rating chain provide 
clear evidence than an error or injustice occurred.  It is inappropriate for raters to include accom- 
plishments or incidents in an OPR that occurred outside the rating period. 

DISCUSSION:  Reports are,  in fact, restricted from containing information that occurred outside 
the reporting period.  If it is subsequently found that a report has violated this requirement, it is 
permissible to  correct the report by  removing onZy the prohibited information and replacing  it 
with achievements which did occur during the period. 

In this case, there are accomplishments mentioned in the disputed OPR that were achieved by the 
applicant prior to the reporting period of 14 Feb 95 -  14 Jun 95 and documented in a previous 
OPR closing out  13 Feb 95,  Examples of repeated information are: the applicant planned and 
executed the first ever AFIP Telemedicine meeting, presented 20 lectures, 1 paper, and trained 20 
physicians, was selected as a U.S. Delegate to the International Congress for Military medicine, 
and was appointed Vice-chairman, College of American Pathologist, Imaging Committee.  Since 

a 

L 

applicant was  performing the same job,  it is possible to have repeated or  similar accomplish- 
ments in a subsequent OPR.. 

We also note the duty title on both the original and the reaccomplished report is not accurate. 
Applicant’s correct duty title is  “Staff Pathologist.”  Therefore, the title on the “new” version is 
incorrect. 

The rater’s  administrative officer  admits he  prepared  the  OPR based  on  the  ratee’s previous 
evaluation.  This practice is inappropriate and unauthorized.  The rater has acknowledged the er- 
ror and reaccomplished the OPR. 

&eAF 

RECOMMENDATION:  We defer to DPPPA for the appropriate resolution of this case. 

M

L

Chief, Eva1 
Chief, E v a l u  

on Programs Branch 

 

9800521