RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00655

      XXXXX COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXX     HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  Calendar  Year  1997C
(CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Board, be amended in Section IV, by deleting  the
last line.

2.    His corrected record, to include the  CY97C  PRF,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board.

3.    The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  16 June
1996 through 15 June 1997, be corrected as follows:

            a.    Section  III.2.   Last  word  in  line  1  be  changed  to
Southern, currently reads South-ern.

            b.   Section III.2.  Last  sentence  of  paragraph  should  read
“Developed OPORD for $70 million move of HQ SOUTHCOM to  ;  coordinates  and
implements plans for moving  800  person  HQ  while  maintaining  continuous
operations.”

            c.   Section IV.  Indent all double bullets two spaces.

            d.   Section VI.  Indent all double bullets two spaces.

            e.   Section VI, line 3, should  read  “—Led  course  of  action
development  for  two  crucial  emerging  missions—Migrant  Operations   and
Disaster Relief.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His senior rater, BGen C---, US Army, wrote the comments in Section 8,  last
line of the OPR and PRF with no prior counseling or  other  indication  that
he was not satisfied with his (applicant’s) performance.  His  decision  was
based on the inputs of his (applicant’s)  previous  boss  who  said  he  was
being “disloyal” because he did not return  to  his  previous  duty  section
when he wanted him to, even though his direction was overruled by the  chain
of command.  On 30 May 1997, two weeks before his  OPR  and  PRF  were  due,
BGen C--- told him that he was going to use them to “ensure  I  do  not  get
promoted.”   He  provided  no  specific  or  substantiated  incidents,   and
acknowledged to him that he lacked any record of counseling or paper  trail.
  Prior  to  30  May  1997,  he  received  only  positive  feedback  on  his
performance from his rating chain.  Additionally, he was awarded  an  impact
award (Joint Service Achievement Medal)  for  his  performance  during  this
rating period.  This was not  the  first  time  BGen  C---  has  abused  the
Officer  Evaluation  System  (OES)  to  derail  the  careers  of  Air  Force
officers.  The OPR and PRF were written in a “career ending” way due to  the
inputs of officers not in  his  rating  chain  and  the  bias  of  one  Army
general.  This is in direct  conflict  with  the  OES,  which  is  based  on
feedback and objective rating.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from  the  rater  on
the contested OPR stating the applicant performed  in  an  exemplary  manner
despite the uncertain chain of command.  He was effectively  caught  in  the
middle of a dispute about where he  was  to  work,  over  which  he  had  no
control.  His continued  presence  in  the  Relocation  Control  Cell  (RCC)
created hard feelings with his previous duty section.  These  feelings  were
expressed to BGen C---.  They were manifested in applicant’s  PRF  and  OPR.
Applicant was informed by BGen C-- that his OPR and PRF would  be  adversely
affected by the situation on  30  May,  two  weeks  prior  to  PRF  release,
clearly in violation of the AF OES.  He recommends the last line of the  PRF
and the last sentence of the additional rater section of the OPR be  removed
from applicant's records and administrative changes be made.  He  recommends
applicant be considered for promotion by the next SSB  and  be  selected  to
lieutenant colonel based on his excellent performance and proven potential.

Applicant also submits a statement  from  the  Director  of  the  Relocation
Control Cell stating applicant worked for him and his  deputy  nine  of  the
twelve months in this rating period.  BGen C--- neither solicited  nor  took
any feedback from either of them  regarding  applicant’s  performance.   The
senior rater received feedback on  applicant  from  his  previous  chain  of
command vice his current rater, counter to the AF OES.  He  recommends  that
the contested OPR and PRF  be  removed  from  applicant’s  record.   Neither
reflect  the  applicant’s  outstanding  exemplary  performance  during  this
period.

Applicant  also  submits  a  statement  from   the   Vice   Commander,   HQS
Reconnaissance Wing and a copy of his CY97C PRF.

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.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C and CY98B Selection Boards.

OPR profile since 1992, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       20 Aug 92             Meets Standards
                       31 May 93             Meets Standards
                       31 May 94             Meets Standards
                       15 Jun 95        Education/Training Report
                       15 Sep 95        Education/Training Report
                    #  15 Jun 96             Meets Standards
                    *  15 Jun 97             Meets Standards
                    ## 30 Apr 98             Meets Standards

* Contested report
# Top report at time of CY97C board.
## Top report at time of CY98B board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Evaluations   Programs   Branch,   AFPC/DPPPE,   reviewed   the
application and states the applicant’s claim that his senior rater  informed
him that the June 1997 OPR and CY97C PRF would be used to get the  applicant
non-selected is unsubstantiated.  The member  who  was  also  in  attendance
with  the  applicant,  Colonel  S---,  USMC,  has  provided  no   supporting
documentation,  i.e.,  a  letter  or   sworn   statement,   supporting   the
applicant’s claim.  The applicant  provides  supporting  documentation  from
Colonels T---, R---, and C--- in reference  to  this  claim;  however,  each
fail to provide  evidence  that  they  witnessed  the  alleged  conversation
between General C--- and the applicant.   AFI  36-2401,  Correcting  Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, clearly states in  paragraph  A1.5.13  “you
must provide factual, specific, and substantiated information that  is  from
credible officials and is based  on  firsthand  observation  or  knowledge.”
They do note that the supporting  letters  from  the  three  colonels  could
explain the significant decline in indorsement “push” from General  C---  in
the disputed OPR as compared to General C---’s indorsement on  the  previous
OPR (closing out June 1996).  However, letters solely from subordinates  are
insufficient   reasons   to   conclude   an   evaluation   indorsement    is
inappropriate.  As for the administrative changes to  the  applicant’s  June
1997 OPR, these changes are either cosmetic or simply  reflect  the  ratee’s
preferred wording.  None of the  requested  changes  cause  the  content  or
meaning of the phrases to  change  and  therefore,  in  no  way  change  the
overall report.  There is no value added by making the requested changes  to
the applicant’s OPR because there is no change  to  the  content/meaning  of
the OPR.  In order to correct  administrative  errors,  the  applicant  must
prove the report would have been substantially different without the  error.
 In reference to the senior rater’s last line in Section VII, the  applicant
has failed to show the OPR contain anything but valid statements.   Per  AFI
36-2401, para 1.3.6., in order  to  change  the  content  in  an  evaluation
report, the evaluator and all subsequent evaluators must also agree  to  the
changes.  Presently, the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  the  required
support to change the evaluation report.   In  addition  to  his  OPR  (June
1997), the applicant is contending his  CY97C  PRF  is  in  error;  however,
because the applicant has failed to substantiate his  claim  of  retribution
by his  senior  rater,  General  C---,  they  must  also  deny  his  request
regarding the PRF.  Per AFI 36-2402 (July 1996), Officer Evaluation  System,
para 4.4.1.3, a  senior  rater  is  solely  responsible  for  evaluating  an
officer’s Record of Performance and  awarding  a  promotion  recommendation.
As stated for the applicant’s request regarding the OPR, the same  standards
of AFI 36-2401 apply when attempting to change the content  of  a  PRF.   In
1988, the OES was designed to allow senior raters to  impact  the  promotion
selection process.  A senior rater makes a  promotion  recommendation  based
upon many factors, not just a single  evaluation.   A  senior  rater,  based
upon his/her position, must make  a  determination  on  whether  or  not  an
officer is ready to serve in the next higher grade.  This assessment can  be
a demanding choice, particularly as you  move  higher  up  the  field  grade
ranks due to lower promotion opportunities; however, the  Central  Selection
Board depends on this senior rater assessment when promoting an  officer  to
the next higher grade.  Since General C--- belongs to  another  service,  an
Air Force Advisor (Senior  USAF  personnel  official  in  the  organization)
reviewed the OPRs to ensure they complied with AF rules.  A senior rater  is
responsible for the content and promotion recommendation awarded on  a  PRF,
and there is no evidence to support the  officer’s  claim  of  anything  but
fair and equitable treatment under the OES.  Presently,  the  applicant  has
provided  no  substantiated  proof  to  show  that  the  applicant  received
anything but fair and equitable treatment.  It is  inappropriate  to  change
the comments by the senior rater on an individual’s  OPR  or  PRF  based  on
inputs  from  the  senior  rater’s  subordinates.   Since  no  evidence  was
provided which shows Air Force Regulations and guidelines were  not  adhered
to, recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application  and
states the applicant’s contention he should receive SSB  consideration  with
inclusion of a revised OPR  is  unfounded.   The  contested  OPR  was  never
considered by the CY97C board because it was not filed in  his  OSR  at  the
time the board convened on 21 July 1997.   AFI  36-2402,  paragraph  3.6.4.3
states in part, “OPRs on EAD (Extended Active Duty) officers are due  to  HQ
AFPC/DPPBR3 no later then 60 days after closeout....”  The  OPR  closed  out
15 June 1997 and should have been filed in  the  applicant’s  OSR  no  later
than 13 August 1997.  However, the OPR was not filed in the applicant’s  OSR
until 16 October 1997.  While they recognize the report was late  for  file,
it was not required to be filed when the CY97C board  convened  on  21  July
1997.  They, therefore, conclude his  request  for  reconsideration  by  the
CY97C board with inclusion of a revised version of the 15 June 1997  OPR  is
invalid since it was never considered by the  original  board  and  was  not
required to be filed  when  the  board  convened.   Based  on  the  evidence
provided, they recommend denial of applicant's request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluations  and  states  that  he  is
submitting a memorandum from Col S--- substantiating the 30 May meeting  and
further justifies his appeal.  He was made aware that the OPR never met  the
board by DPPPA, the office that recommended he appeal based on the facts  of
this case in October 1997.  His request is due to the fact that the  OPR  is
a permanent part of an officer’s record and as such,  should  be  corrected.
It was not his intent, nor did the appeal state, the revised OPR  should  go
to the SSB.  As for the administrative changes, they were to  correct  basic
format, grammar  and  readability,  not  reflect  his  “preferred  wording.”
These changes were coordinated with his rater, Colonel R---.   He  was  told
by DPPPA in October 1997 that the DD 149 was the vehicle to do  this.   This
appeal is based on misuse of the Air Force OES which is  based  on  feedback
and objective evaluation.  That is why he requested SSB with revised PRF.

In further support of his appeal, applicant submits a statement from Col S--
- stating that as a significant period of time  has  elapsed,  he  does  not
specifically recall BGen C--- actually stating that he  would  use  the  PRF
and OPR to the ends that applicant attests.  In his opinion,  the  issue  is
whether or not the reports are just/fair from  a  due  process  perspective.
Recalling events, he does not believe that applicant  was  counseled  up  to
the time the PRF was  submitted.   As  to  the  period  leading  up  to  the
submission of the OPR, he can attest to the fact that  the  J3  did  counsel
applicant (the only counseling he is aware of) on his performance.   He  was
now the VJ3 and present  for  a  portion  of  the  counseling  session.   He
believes that the counseling session  took  place  approximately  two  weeks
prior to the submission of the OPR.  In his opinion, this  was  insufficient
time to correct or adjust performance.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 amending  the  Promotion
Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for  the  CY97C   Lieutenant   Colonel   Board.
Applicant is requesting the PRF for the CY97C Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  be
amended by deleting the last line in Section IV.  Although we  do  not  know
what benefit it would serve the applicant,  we  recommend  this  request  be
approved.  After  reviewing  the  rater's  statement  and  other  supporting
documentation submitted by the applicant, the Board is of the  opinion  that
it appears the applicant was caught in the middle of a dispute  about  where
he was to work.  After reviewing his record, we are of the opinion  that  he
continued to performed his duties even under these circumstances.  Based  on
the amended PRF, we also recommend that he be considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection  Board  for  the  CY97C
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice regarding the  applicant’s  request
that his OPR closing 15 June 1997, Section VI, line 3, be amended to read “-
Led course of action development for two crucial  emerging  missions-Migrant
Operations and Disaster Relief.”  After reviewing the  evidence  of  record,
we believe that insufficient evidence has  been  presented  to  support  his
request  that  the  OPR  closing  15 June  1997,  Section  VI  be   amended.
Therefore, we do not believe this portion of his request should be  granted.
  Notwithstanding  the  foregoing  recommendation,  we  do  note  that   the
contested OPR contains a number of typographical errors and  recommend  that
they be corrected as indicated below.  In addition, we  recommend  that  his
corrected OPR closing 15 June 1997 be considered for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for  the  CY98B  Lieutenant
Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

      a.    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, for  cycle
0597C, be amended in Section IV, by deleting the  line  “-Good  performer-in
the air and on the ground.”

      b.    The Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered  for  the
period 16 June 1996 through 15 June 1997, be corrected as follows:

            -    Section III.2, the last  word  in  line  1  be  changed  to
“Southern”, rather than “South-ern.”  The last sentence be amended  to  read
“Developed OPORD for $70 million move of HQ SOUTHCOM to  Miami;  coordinates
and implements plans for moving 800 person HQ while  maintaining  continuous
operations.”

            -    Section IV and Section VI.  All double bullets be  indented
two spaces.

It is further recommended that his record, to include  the  above  corrected
CY97C PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel
by Special Selection Board for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board;  and  his
record, to include the above amended OPR, be  considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection  Board  for  the  CY98B
Lieutenant Colonel Board

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 19 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
            Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
            Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Mar 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 9 Apr 98.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Apr 98.
   Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Response, dated 8 May 98 w/atch.





                                       Panel Chair


AFBCMR 98-00655




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:

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

            a.   The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form  709,  for
cycle 0597C,  be  amended  in  Section  IV,  by  deleting  the  line  “-Good
performer-in the air and on the ground.”

            b.   The Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered  for
the period 16 June 1996 through 15 June 1997, be corrected as follows:

                 -     Section III.2, the last word in line 1 be changed  to
“Southern”, rather than “South-ern.”  The last sentence be amended  to  read
“Developed OPORD for $70 million move of HQ  SOUTHCOM  to;  coordinates  and
implements plans for moving  800  person  HQ  while  maintaining  continuous
operations.”

                 -     Section IV and Section VI.   All  double  bullets  be
indented two spaces.

                 -     Section VII, deleting the line  “Good  performer  and
leader”.

      It  is  further  directed  that  his  record,  to  include  the  above
corrected CY97C PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY97C Lieutenant  Colonel  Board;
and his record,  to  include  the  above  amended  OPR,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board  for
the CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Board.




                                         JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director
                                                                        Air
Force Review Boards Agency