AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00726 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) prepared for the Calendar 
Year 1993A Lieutenant Colonel Board be voided. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

1.  Senior rater did  not  discuss the officers performance with 
officials in the supervisory chain. 
2.  He did not evaluate the officers performance and a2sess his 
or her potential based on  performance, IAW AFR 36-10. 
3.  Other officers received job titles and duty descriptions far 
above the duties they performed.  These falsified job titles and 
duty descriptions were not corrected for the supplemental review 
of PRFs directed by HQ USAFE. 
4.  Officers outside the rating chain may have had inappropriate 
communications with the senior rater. 
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal brief, a 
copy of the contested PRF, and  a  copy of the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board  (ERAB) appeal package. 

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  filed  a  similar  appeal  under  AFI  36-2401, 
Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  which  was 
denied by the ERAB 15 Apr 97. 

98-00726 

The applicant has  four nonselections for promotion to the 
of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY93A,  CY94A,  CY96C  and 
central lieutenant colonel selection boards. 
OPR profile since 1990, follows: 

grade 
CY97C 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

1 
1 
18 
16 
13 
13 
1 
30 
30 
3 

Jun 90 
May 91 
Nov 91 
Nov 92 
Nov 93 
Nov 94 
Jun 95 
Apr 96 
Apr 97 
Mar 98 

Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 

Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed the 
application  and  states  that  Para  4-9  of  AFR  36-10  encouraged 
senior raters to di-scuss an officer's  performance, if necessary, 
but did-not require this action to be taken when preparing a PRF. 
In reference to the applicant claiming the senior rater did not 
evaluate  the  officer's  performance  and  assess  his  or  her 
potential  based  on  performance,  IAW  AFR  36-10;  they  state  he 
bases this claim on the fact that individuals outside his chain 
of command reviewed his records and made suggested inputs to the 
senior  rater  for  preparing  the  PRF.  They  further  state,  the 
ultimate decision on the content of the PRF rests with the senior 
rater.  In a  December 1994 USAFE/IGQ  inquiry on this issue,  it 
was  noted  this  allegation  was  unsubstantiated  based  upon  the 
applicant' s rater' s testimony that the two individuals involved 
were well  qualified to make  these suggestions based  upon their 
daily  interactions with  the  applicant.  Applicant  claims  that 
other officers were  given  job titles and  duty  descriptions  far 
above  the  duties  they  performed,  they  found  this  claim  to  be 
invalid.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to support 
these allegations concerning the applicant's  claim that officers 
outside the rating chain may have had inappropriate communication 
with  the  senior  rater,  they  state, the  USAFE/IGQ  inquiry  from 
December 1994 did in fact discover a mini-board process was used 
in the preparation of the of the applicant's  PRF.  However, the 
inquiry determined the senior rater himself did not hold a mini- 
board and was thus, not in violation of the intent of AFR 36-10. 
The applicant has  failed to provide any new evidence to support 
the  claim  that  the  senior  rater  performed  any  illegal  act  in 
violation of Air Force regulations.  They further state, despite 
the applicant's  interpretation of AFR 36-10, there is no evidence 

2 

98- 00726 

that would warrant  another re-look of the applicant's  CY93 PRF. 
By signing the applicant's  PRF, the senior rater, an experienced 
senior officer, is stating the PRF is an accurate assessment of 
the applicant's  potential.  Therefore, they recommend denial of 
the applicant's  request. 

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

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application and states that they concur with the advisory opinion 
rendered by AFPC/DPPPE.  They state that all of the applicant's 
contentions have been thoroughly addressed and they have nothing 
further to add. 
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and advises that 
the  senior  rater  was  stationed  at  another  base,  in  another 
country.  It was important in the interest of fairness that the 
senior rater make an attempt to get to know something about those 
officers  whose  career  depended  upon  him. 
In  the  documents 
provided to him by -SAF/IG, there is, at no time, any igdication 
that the senior rater made any such attempt. 
He agrees that the PRF should be based on an officer's  cumulative 
performance.  However, the  evidence shows that  the  rater based 
his  whole  decision  process  upon  past  performance  without 
attempting to obtain an update of recent performance, an updated 
OPR, or International Evaluation Report. 
SAF/IG may  have claimed that the contention that other officers 
were given job titles and duty descriptions far above the duties 
they performed was invalid.  However, he believes the evidence in 
the  19 December 1994 Report  of  Inquiry, the 20 May  1996 AF/DPX 
letter and the  11 June 1996 SAF/IGQ letter prove  that  some job 
title maneuvering did take place.  Because the job title inequity 
was not corrected when the new senior rater conducted his relook 
of the PRFs, those that had received inflated job titles and duty 
descriptions continued to have an unfair advantage.  He, in fact, 
alleged  that  the  job  title  maneuvering  practice  was  used 
repeatedly at his base.  He also gave the inquiry officer  four 
examples, with documentation, covering several promotion boards, 
but the inquiry officer's  report states it was beyond the scope 
of  this  inquiry.  If  the  inquiry  officer  had  spent  more  time 
investigating this area, there would be no doubt. 

Applicant  further  states  that  the  Air  Force  advisory  did  not 
answer his contention that officers outside the rating chain may 
have had inappropriate communications with the senior rater.  In 
response to the statement, "The applicant has  failed to provide 

3 

. .  

9

.

 

98- 00726 

any new evidence". . ,he must  emphasize that the SAF/IG, once the 
decision had been made to give them a PRF relook, did not pursue 
this  case, In their  5  December  1995  letter  SAF/IG  specifically 
states that although the information you present may be  factual, 
another  inquiry  is  not  warranted  and  recommends  appeal  to  the 
AFBCMR.  He  has  appealed through  the  Freedom of  Information Act 
for  further  documentation  (SAF/GCA letter  dated  6  May  1 9 9 8 ) .  
However,  except  for the  19 December  1994  Report  of  Inquiry and 
the 20 May  1996  AF/DPX letter to SAF/IGQ, SAF/GCA has refused to 
release  any  further  documents  (except  those  he  provided). 
Therefore, he knows nothing about the evidence the first inquiry 
uncovered, very little of the evidence the second inquiry officer 
uncovered,  and  he  has  been  denied  any  opportunity to  see  that 
evidence which he might use to build his appeal. 

Finally, his senior rater may  not have violated any regulation. 
However,  he  did  it  the  easy  way,  and  in  doing  so,  he  did  not 
provide the officers he was responsible for a fair shot, which is 
all he is asking for. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CO NCLUD ES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant-  has  exhausted  all  remedies  prohded  by 
existing law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for  the  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THA T: 
The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that  the  application was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance; and  that  the  application will  only be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this application. 

4 

98- 00726 

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 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 Apr 98. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 Apr 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 May 98. 
Exhibit F. Applicant's  Response, dated 29 May 98, w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 

v