AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00791 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

-3519%9 

~- 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
He be retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, 
as a below the zone  (BPZ) candidate, by the Calendar Year  1990 
(CY90) Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

APPLICANT CO NTENDS THAT: 
HQ Air Combat Command's  (ACC's) Senior Rater Review  (SRR) in 1996 
conducted  the  Calendar  Year  1989  (CY89)  and  CY90  promotion 
reviews  concurrently  and  independently.  The  process  did  not 
allow  the  results  from  the  first  board  to  be  reviewed  by  the 
second board.  Therefore, the CY90 reviewer did not have access 
to  the  revised  "Definitely  Promote"  (DP)  CY89  Promotion 
Recommendation Form  (PRF) .  These procedures contradict the Air 
Force Regulation in effect during the original promotion cycle in 
question.  Given the rules in effect at the time of the original 
board, in  1990,  AFR  36-10  (Cl), 1 February  1990, para.  4-10.f, 
previous BPZ  "DP" marked PRFs were available to all senior raters 
and  the  management  level  presidents,  as  well  as  the  central 
selection boards.  Not  making  this  information available under 
"special  rules"  creates  an  act  of  omission  which  in  itself 
constitutes a  new  inappropriate procedure.  This  compounds the 
inappropriate procedures that  the SRR  was  designed  to  correct. 
The  'fair  and  level  playing  field"  HQ  ACC/DP  refers  to  only 
applied to the review process created in 1996.  He wants a 'fair 
and level playing field" with those officers who met the original 
CY90 board who had previous CY89  "DP" PRFs in their records and 
were promoted  BPZ.  The  "level playing  field" referred to only 
applied  to  those  officers  meeting  HQ  ACC's  SRR  who  were  not 
selected  on  the  previous  boards  in  question.  Based  on  his 
experience as a squadron commander and the former wing commanders 
he has  talked  to, he  believes  a previous  BPZ  "DP"  PRF  carries 
significant  weight  and  influence  on  the  senior  rater  in  his 
decision to grant  a  "DPN on subsequent promotion boards.  The 
rules at the time were designed to allow senior raters to convey 

* 

, 

r 

98-00791 

this  very  influence.  His  current  record  contains  the  revised 
CY89  (BPZ) 'DP"  PRF and  the original  CY91  (IPZ) "DP"  PRF.  An 
impartial  review  of  his  record  of performance  will  reveal  no 
reasonable explanation for not granting a "DP" rating on his CY90 
(1 year  BPZ)  PRF. 
He  does  not  accept  the  senior  rater's 
justification for not reviewing his records to determine whether 
a  revised CY90  (1 year BPZ)  PRF was  appropriate.  His  primary 
reason is 'The  process that I used during my tenure, however, was 
in strict  compliance with  all  governing  regulations, policies, 
and procedures.N  The HQ ACC/IG and HQ ACC/CC found inappropriate 
information or procedures were used.  Since he was also the wing 
commander during the CY89 promotion cycle and his  (applicant's) 
revised  CY89  ( 2   year BPZ)  PRF was  changed  to a  "DP" rating  in 
1996 by ACC, he believes his statement is open to question.  The 
senior rater also states "In my judgment, your revised CY89 PRF 
does not  constitute a significant lack of  information."  At  the 
time,  BPZ  PRF's  marked  "DP"  carried  significant  weight  on 
subsequent  promotion  boards.  In  summary, no  senior  rater, no 
MLRB  President,  no  central  selection  board,  and  no -special 
selection board has ever reviewed his CY90  (1 year BPZ)"records 
that  included the revised CY89  ( 2   year BPZ)  PRF.  Therefore, no 
review  or  consideration  has  ever  occurred  of  his  record  of 
performance as constructed to appear as it would have had it met 
the original board at his level. 

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  two  letters  from 
ACC/CC,  AF  Form  948,  Application  for  Correction/Removal  of 
Evaluation  Reports;  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) Message;  HQ 
AFPC/DPPPAB memorandum; HQ AFPC/DPPAB SSB Consideration message; 
SAF/AAP  SSB  Results,  w/atchs;  Applicant's  letter  to  ACC/DP, 
w/atchs; HQ ACC/DP letter to Applicant; Applicant's  e-mail to HQ 
ACC/DPPP; HQ ACC/DPPP e-mail to applicant; Applicant's  letter to 
Colonel  D---  P---  (Senior Reviewer)  w/atchs;  Colonel  D---  P--- 
letter  to  applicant;  AFR  36-10(C1),  1  Feb  90,  para  4-10.f. 
excerpt; and CY89 and CY90 PRFs. 

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 colonel. 

For  the  years  1989  and  1990,  ACC  determined  inappropriate 
procedures were  used  by  the  senior  rater  of  the  55th Strategic 
Reconnaissance  Wing  at  Offutt  AFB  where  the  applicant  was 
Based  upon  these  procedures,  ACC/CV  appointed 
assigned. 
designated  senior  raters  to  review  each  affected  officer's 

-h 

98-00791 

original PRF and Record of Performance  (ROP) to determine if the 
promotion recommendation awarded was appropriate.  If a new PRF 
recommendation was awarded, the affected officer had  the option 
to appeal  the original PRF through the normal Air Force appeal 
process. 

Based on the SRR review of his PO589 PRF and subsequent upgrade, 
the  applicant was  considered and not  selected for promotion  to 
the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY89A Board. 
Applicant was considered and selected in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) 
by  the  CY91A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  and  the  CY96B  Colonel 
Selection Board. 

OER/OPR profile since 1987, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 
14 May 87 
07 Jun 88 
07 Jun 89 
08 Jan 90 
08 Jan 91 
08 Jan 92 
08 Jan 93 
08 Jan 94 
22 Jun 94 
05 Jun 95 
05 Jun 96 
05 Jun 97 

# 

## 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 
- 
Educat ion/Training Rep&t 

1-1-1 

Education/Training Report 

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

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top report at time of CY91A board. 
##  Top report at time of CY96B board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed the 
application and states that SRR ACC determined and they concurred 
it  was  inappropriate  to  include previous  PRFs  in  an officer's 
ROP.  Up  until  1991, PRFs were  prepared  only  on  officers who 
received a "DP" rating and ACC directed its senior raters not to 
include  comments  on  "promote"  ratings.  ACC  rightly  concluded 
that  if previous PRFs were  included in an officer's  ROP  during 
the SRR, the designated senior rater may have been inadvertently 
influenced in assigning a 'new"  rating.  For the SRR, designated 
senior  raters  were  tasked  to  award  promotion  recommendations 
based  solely on the ROP without  the PRF.  These SRR rules were 
the  most  equitable  for  the  affected  officers  to  ensure  each 

3 

- 

98-00791 

officer  received  an  unbiased  evaluation of  their  record.  The 
applicant appealed his SRR  "Promote" rating for his CY90 PRF to 
ACC/CV  and  the  appeal  was  denied. 
ACC/CV  instructed  the 
applicant to pursue an appeal on his original CY90 "Promote" 
,  the  wing  commander of  the 
for  the  CY89  and  90  Cen 
plicant followed this avenue and 
his  original  senior  rater  denied  the  appeal.  They  defer  to 
AFPC/DPPPA for a recommendation in this case. 
A  complete, copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition Division reviewed 
the application and states that in his attempts to get  the CY90 
PRF upgraded to a "DP," the applicant contacted the senior rater 
and management level evaluation board  (MLEB)  president to request 
their  support.  Both  officers  have  declined  to  provide  their 
support  as they believe  the  SRR  "was in strict  compliance with 
all governing  regulations, policies  and  procedures."  As  such, 
the  applicant  will  be  unable  to  obtain a DP PRF  for  the  CY90 
board  and, therefore, no  SSB  is  warranted.  Based  on  the  SRR 
review  in  1996,  it  was  determined  that  the  applicant's CY89 
promotion  recommendation  should  be  upgraded  to  a  DP.  He  was 
subsequently granted promotion reconsideration by that board and 
nonselected by  the  same.  In his  brief, the  applicant makes  a 
comment that a notification message was sent to him that he would 
be  considered  for  both  the  CY89  and  CY90  boards  by  SSB  in 
November 1996.  However, they have confirmed that he was not  to 
be  considered by  the CY90 board  as he  was  originally notified, 
and  the  SSB  program  manager  advised  the  applicant's  servicing 
military  personnel  flight  on  2 October  1996  (prior to  the  SSB 
convening date)  that  he  would  not  be  considered by  that board. 
This  was  a  simple  mistake  -  nothing  more,  nothing  less. 
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to demonstrate 
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  in  regard  to  the 
applicant's  request  for  direct  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
lieutenant colonel.  An officer may be  qualified  for promotion, 
but,  in  the  judgment  of  a  selection board  -  vested  with  the 
discretionary authority to make  the  selections -  he may  not  be 
the best  qualified of  those available for the limited number of 
promotion  vacancies.  Absent  clear-cut  evidence  the  applicant 
would have been a selectee by the CY90 board, they believe a duly 
constituted board applying the complete promotion criteria is in 
the  most  advantageous  position  to  render  this  vital 
determination.  The board's  prerogative  to do so  should not  be 
usurped  except  under  extraordinary  circumstances.  Further,  to 
grant  a direct  promotion would  be  unfair  to  all  other officers 
who  have  extremely  competitive  records  and  also  did  not  get 
promoted - particularly those officers who also had their records 
reviewed  by  the  SRR  and  did  not  receive  a  DP  recommendation 
either.  Other than his own opinions, the applicant has provided 
no substantiation to his allegations.  The burden of proof is on 

4 

- 

98-00791 

They  do  not  support  direct  promotion. 

him. 
Based  on  the 
evidence  provided  and  the  assessment  by  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE,  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  provided 
specific comments.  He  states that  for any  review, his  record 
should be reconstructed to appear as it would have had it met the 
original board  or  original senior rater review.  He wants  the 
same opportunity given to any officer who met the original board 
in  1990  with  a  previous  BPZ  "DP"  marked  PRF.  This  has  not 
occurred to date.  Given the rules in effect at the time of the 
original board in 1990, AFR 36-10 (Cl), 1 February 1990, para 4- 
10.f, previous BPZ "DP" marked PRFs were available to alf senior 
raters  and  the  management  level  presidents,  as  well  as  the 
central selection boards.  Not making this information available 
under "special rules" creates an act of omission which in itself 
constitutes a  new  inappropriate procedure.  This compounds the 
inappropriate procedures  that  the  SRR  was  designed  to  correct. 
In  summary,  no  senior  rater,  no  MLRB  President,  no  central 
selection board, and no special selection board has ever reviewed 
his CY90  (1 year BPZ) records that included the revised CY 89  (2 
year BPZ) PRF. 
Applicant's complete response 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. 

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 our  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. 

5 

Q 

L 

* 

98-00791 

THE  BOA RD DETERMINES THAT: 
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. 

The following members of  the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 17  December  1998,  under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Edward C. Koenig, 11, Member 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote) 

ie: 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 March 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 May 1998. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 May 1998. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 June 1998. 
Exhibit F. Applicant's  Response, dated 16 June 1998. 

Panel Chair 

- c  

D E P A R T M E N T  OF  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

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

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

MEMORANDUM FOR SAFMIBR 

I)  2 MAY  11g8 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPE 

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

SUBJECT:  Amlication for Correction of Military Records - 

Requested Action:  Applicant is requesting retroactive “Below-the-Zone” (BPZ) 
promotion to Lieutenant Colonel on the CY90 Central Selection Board (CSB). 

Basis of Request:  Applicant bases his request on the claim that his Record of 
Performance (ROP) as viewed by the CY90 Air Combat Command (ACC) Promotion 
Recommendation Form (PRF) Senior Rater Review (SRR) was incomplete. 

Facts:  The applicant’s original “Promote” recommendation on his CY90  BPZ PRF was 
determined to be accurate by a designated senior rater appointed by ACC.  The applicant 
was  subsequently not awarded a Special Selection Board for possible selection below- 
the-zone to Lieutenant Colonel for the CY90 CSB. 

Discussion:  For the vears 1989 and 1990. ACC determined inappropriate procedures 
were used by the senior rater of the 
where the applicant was assigned.  Based upon these procedures, ACCKV appointed 
designated senior raters to review each affected officer’s original PRF and Record of 
Performance (PRF) to determine if the promotion recommendation awarded was 
appropriate.  If a new PRF recommendation was awarded, the affected officer had the 
option to appeal the original PRF through the normal Air Force appeal process. 

For the CY89 Lieutenant Colonel CSB, the applicant’s original PRF was deemed to be 
inappropriate and it was recommended he be awarded a “Definitely Promote.”  Based 
upon the upgrade to the CY89 PRF, the applicant is contesting the SRR accomplished on 
his CY90 PRF.  The applicant bases his request on the fact ACC did not include his 
CY89 “upgraded” PRF in his ROP for the CY90 SRR.  The applicant argues previous 
PRFs were included in an officer’s ROP for the CY90 CSB (this policy was discontinued 
by the 1995 AF OES review).  He states because the upgraded CY89 PRF was not 
included in his ROP, the designated senior rater was unaware of the “Definitely Promote” 
he received on his CY89 SRR.  The applicant believes this document alone was sufficient 
enough to warrant a “Definitely Promote” BPZ for the CY90 CSB and subsequent 
selection to Lieutenant Colonel BPZ. 

For the SRR, ACC determined and we concurred it was inappropriate to include previous 
PRFs in an officer’s ROP.  Up until  1991, the rules for preparing BPZ PRFs varied within 
ACC.  Up until 1991, PRFs were prepared only on officers who received a “Definitely 
Promote” rating and ACC directed its senior raters not to include comments on “P” 
ratings.  ACC rightly concluded that if previous PRFs were included in an officer’s ROP 
during the SRR, the designated senior rater may have been inadvertently influenced in 
assigning a “new” rating.  For the SRR, designated senior raters were tasked to award 
promotion recommendations based solely on the ROP without the PRF. 

These SRR rules were the most equitable for the affected officers to ensure each officer 
received an unbiased evaluation of their record.  The applicantxppealed his SRR 
“Promote” rating for his CY90 PRF to ACCKV and the appeal was denied.  ACCKV 
instructed the applicant to pursue an appeal on his original CY90 “Promote” PRF with his 
original senior rater, the wing commander of the 55*  Strategic Reconnaissance Wing for 
the CY89 and 90 CSBs.  The applicant followed this avenue and his original senior rater 
denied the appeal. 

Recommendation:  We defer to DPPPA for a recommendation in this case. 

Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt. 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

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

R A N D O L P H   A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

ME'MORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

I 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPP 

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

SUBJECT: 

28 MAY  1998 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) promotion by the 

CY90 (16 Jan 90) lieutenant colonel board 

Basis for Request.  Based on upon a senior rater review (SRR) of his previous CY89 

(1 5 May 89) lieutenant colonel board 
contends the senior rater who conduc 
did not have complete information.  He believes th-PRF 
th 

RR. 

promotion recommendation form (PRF), the applicant 
RR on t h m r o m o t i o n  recommendation form (PRF) 
should have been included  in ROP for 

Recommendation.  We do not support direct promotion and, therefore, recommend denial.  If, 

however, the AFBCMR determines relief is appropriate, then we recommend promotion reconsideration 
by the 

oard via a special selection board (SSB). 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely filed.  Based on the SRR, a similar application was submitted 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation Reports, in which he 
appealed hisa(lgbPRF.  The applicant did not appeal under AFI 36-2401 for this current appeal.  We 
did not return the application since he is requesting direct promotion and since he does not have the 
required evaluator support. 

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

c.  Promotion nonselection is not an issue.  As a matter of fact, the applicant was selected in- 
and the CY96B 

Apr 9 1)  lieutenant colonel board 
the-promotion zone (IPZ) by the C 
.  Since his line number has not y 
(2 Dec 96) colonel selection board 
el as of this date.  Based on the SRR 
applicant has not assumed the grad 
PRF and subsequent upgrade, the applicant was considered and nonselected by th 

6. 

d.  HQ AFPC/DPPPE provided an advisory, dated  12 May 98.  We concur with their 

assessment and add the following for the AFBCMR's consideration. 

e.  The applicant contends that due to the promotion improprieties (discussed  in HQ 

advisory) that occurred in  1996, the SRR for the 
RF available.  If they had, he contends he would 

PRF review should have also 
RF. 
tten a DP on th 

However, as pointed out by HQ AFPC/DPPPE, “For the SRR, ACC [Air Combat Command] determined 
and we concurred it was inappropriate to include previous PRFs in an officer’s ROP.” 

f.  In his attempts to get th-RF 

upgraded to a “Definitely Promote” (DP), the 

applicant contacted the senior rater and management level evaluation board (MLEB) president to request 
their support.  Both officers (see tabs 9 and  13 to appeal) have declined to provide their support as they 
believe the SRR ‘Lwas in strict compliance with all governing regulations, policies and procedures.”  As 
such, the applicant will be unable to obtain a DP PRF forth 
warranted. 

board and, therefore, no SSB is 

g.  Based on the SRR review in  1996, it was determined that the applicant’ 

PR should 

be upgraded to a DP.  He was subsequently granted promotion reconsideration by that board and 
nonselected by same.  In his brief, the applicant makes a comment that a notification message was sent to 
him that he would be considered for both the 
confirmed that he was not to be considered by t 
program manager advised the applicant’s servicing military personnel flight on 2 Oct 96 (prior to the SSB 
convening date) that he would not be considered by that board.  This was a simple mistake-nothing 
more, nothing less. 

by SSB in Nov 96.  However, we have 

e was originally notified, and the SSB 

h.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable 

error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s request  for direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel.  An officer may be qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a selection board--vested 
with discretionary authority to make the selections--he may not be the best qualified of those available for 
the limited number of promotion vacancies.  Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would  have been a 

board, we believe a duly constituted board applying the complete promotion 
dvantageous position to render this vital determination.  The board’s prerogative to 

do so should not be usurped except under extraordinary circumstances.  Further, to grant a direct 
promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records and also did not 
get promoted-particularly those officers who also had their records reviewed by the SRR and did not 
receive a DP recommendation  either.  Other than his own opinions, the applicant has provided no 
substantiation to his allegations.  The burden of proof is on him.  We do not support direct promotion. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided and the assessment by HQ AFPCDPPPE, we 

recommend denial. 

Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

olonel, USAF 
Recognition Div 

. . - . _.  . . 

. 

.. .