DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-01651 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF O F  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: 

promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 
1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

of the Department of the Air Force relatiyg to 
o include the Air Force Commendation Medal, 2  Oak 
989 through 28 February 1991, be considered for 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01651 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  The  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  rendered  for  the 
periods 16 June 1994 through 15 June 1995, 16 June 1995 through 
13 March 1996, and 14 March 1996 through 13 March 1997, Block 11. 
Unit Mission Description be changed. 

2.  The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  submitted  to  the 
Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) lieutenant colonel selection board be 
changed. 
3.  The Air  Force Commendation Medal  2nd  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFCM 
20LC) for the period 31 August 1989 through 28 February 1991, be 
added to his officer selection folder ( O S F ) .  
4.  He  be  considered  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for the CY97C Lieutenant 
Colonel Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His  official  records  are  incomplete  due  to  his  direct 
participation in covert  Special Access  Required  (SAR) programs. 
DoD  security  restrictions  prohibit  the  disclosure  of  SAR 
information outside  of  specifically  approved  program  channels. 
As  a  result,  his  records  are  not  a  true  and  accurate 
representation of  his  job performance or his  impact on mission 
accomplishment.  The unit mission description on these documents 
does not adequately address the command staff level of personnel 
assigned to the unit. 
An  AFCM  was  submitted  on  his  behalf  in  conjunction  with  his 
reassignment  from  the -. 
The  timing  of  the  award 
submission coincided  with  the  deactivation  of  the 
and 
reassignment of  all personnel.  This award was  never processed 
and was not included in his records.  Several attempts were made 
to  determine  the  award  status.  His  assignment  to -, 
The 
Japan  made  this  status  determination  quite  difficult. 
subsequent  deactivation  of  17th Air  Force  made  matters  worse. 

98-01651 

Eventually,  it  was  clear  that  the  original  award  would  never 
processed.  Unfortunately, it was very difficult to contact his 
original supervisor and  have him  resubmit a  new award package. 
He was eventually able to have the award submitted and approved. 
Board members may have been unjustly influenced by the absence of 
this award in his records. 

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  SAR  Program 
ishments Memorandum  (Classified -  On file at  SAF/AZZ and 
AFCM  Award  Citation and  Special Order, SAR  Program 
Memorandum,  Officer  Preselection  Brief,  and  Unit 

Mission Description Memorandum. 

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  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Selection Board.  He was again considered by the CY98B Lieutenant 
Colonel Selection Board; however, the results from that board are 
not releasable at this time. 

OPR profile since 1994, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

* 
* 
*  # 
* 

15 Jun 94 
15 Jun 95 
13 Mar 96 
13 Mar 97 
03 Mar 98 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Acting  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed 
the application and states that  the two letters from the senior 
rater/reviewer are identical, with the exception of the names of 
the  applicants, to  those  received  with  an  appeal  from  another 
officer from the same squadron.  The applicant provided a letter 
of  support  from  the  reviewer/rater of  the  most  recent  OPR  and 
PRF.  However, they do not find any evidentiary support from any 
other members of the rating chain of the contested reports.  The 

2 

98-01651 

applicant  has  not  provided  the  necessary  information  to 
substantiate his contention the unit mission description on the 
reports was erroneous or inadequate.  The reviewer/senior rater 
from the most  recent OPR/PRF  states in his memorandum  the unit 
mission description was incomplete because it did not reflect the 
full scope of the unit's  responsibilities, or the fact the unit 
had  \\command level" equivalency.  However, he does not admit how 
he  was  hindered  from  submitting  the  original  report  with  a 
fitting  unit  mission  description  when  he  wrote/reviewed  and 
signed the original OPR and PRF.  Further, he does not say he has 
new information now that was previously unavailable to him when 
the contested reports became matters of record.  If he knew the 
unit mission description was wanting, why did he knowingly submit 
a  report  that  did  not  adequately  convey  the  breadth  and 
importance  of  the  individual's  duty  performance  or  accurately 
describe the unit's mission?  What is not addressed by either the 
applicant or the lone evaluator is what unit mission description 
was used on the OPRs rendered for other officers assigned to the 
same unit during the period of the contested report.  Since this 
appeal  is  identical  to  that  of  another  officer  in  the  same 
squadron, it  is apparent  the  same unit  mission  description was 
used for not only these two officers, but probably for any other 
officer eligible for the CY97C board as well.  The applicant has 
not  furnished evidence  the unit  mission  description on his  OPR 
differed  from  that  of  other  officers  in  the  unit  thereby 
indicating his OPR was erroneous.  However, if the applicant can 
provide  documentation  proving  his  unit  mission  description 
differed  from  any  other  officer  eligible  for  the  CY97C  board, 
they would  appreciate  the opportunity  to  review and  comment on 
any such evidence presented to the AFBCMR prior to their decision 
being rendered.  They contend the applicant did not  show proper 
diligence prior to the promotion board.  He has been aware of the 
OPR unit mission description for almost three years because  the 
same mission description was used on each of the OPRs rendered to 
him for each contested reporting period.  In addition, if he felt 
the  CY97C  board  may  have  had  the  perception  the  mission 
description was  inadequate on  the  reports, or  that  he  was  now 
working at a subordinate command level due to the reorganization, 
he could have exercised his option to write a letter explaining 
the contested issues to the board president.  However, they find 
no evidence he wrote any such letter to the board prior to his 
original  consideration.  They,  therefore,  are  opposed  to  the 
board  changing  the  unit  mission  description  on  the  last  three 
OPRs  and  most  recent  PRF  and,  therefore,  oppose  S S B  
consideration. 

AFPC/DPPPA further states that even though the AFCM 20LC  special 
order was published on 28 May 1998 and the citation was filed in 
his record on 29 May  1998, they note the close-out of  the award 

3 

98-01651 

was  February  1991.  As  such, they believe  the  time  it  took  to 
process  this  was  exorbitant,  and  they  would  not  object  to 
promotion reconsideration by the CY97C board on this issue. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that 
he agrees that  the basis of his appeal is similar to another's 
(with  regard  to  the  inaccurate  unit  mission  description). 
However, he  strongly requests that  his  appeal be  considered on 
its  own  merit. 
No  other  individual's  actions,  regarding 
promotion appeal, should have  any bearing  on the merits of  his 
appeal.  In fact, his SAR program participation and contributions 
(as outlined  in  the  classified  memorandum)  are  significantly 
different.  It  is important to point  out  that  BG H---  was  the 
senior rater for his  PRF.  He was  the only  evaluator for that 
contested document.  As such, he deemed it sufficient to include 
only his letter as supporting documentation.  As BG H---  was the 
senior rater for his 13 March  1997 OPR  (and a General Officer) , 
he  also  deemed  it  sufficient  to  include  only  his  letter  as 
supporting documentation.  General H---  did not knowingly submit 
an  inaccurate  report.  No  one  has  claimed  that  he  had.  The 
inadequate  and  inaccurate  unit  mission  description  came  to 
General  H--- ' s   attention  after  his  command  received  dismal 
results on several promotion boards.  He queried HQ AFMPC and HQ 
ACC  and  it  was  suggested that  his personnel  were  not  receiving 
due credit for the level of staff work  they were accomplishing. 
General H---  asked his staff to look at ways to properly convey 
the importance of his unit's  work.  One of the methods discovered 
was  to  modify  unit  mission  descriptions.  Surely  there  was  no 
intent, at  the  time  his  reports were  accomplished, to provide 
inaccurate  unit  mission  descriptions.  However,  based  on  the 
statements  of  his  rater,  additional  rater,  and  senior  rater, 
there  can be  no  question  that  they  were, in  fact,  inaccurate. 
The  fact  that  action  was  not  taken  at  the  time  of  reports 
submission should not be cause to invalidate merit of the appeal. 
He  was  confused  HQ  AFPC/DPPA's  questioned  what  unit  mission 
description  was  used  for  other  officers  assigned  to  the  same 
He does not contest that 
unit. 
the unit mission description used for his reports were different 
from other officers from his unit.  He was not competing on the 
CY97C board  solely against officers  from his  unit.  There were 
thousands of  officers competing on  that  board.  Most  had  unit 
mission  descriptions different  from his  (as most  officers were 
assigned to different units).  His contention has been that his 
unit mission description (along with every other officer assigned 
to his unit) was incomplete/inaccurate.  He was, therefore, at a 
disadvantage relative to other officers competing for promotion. 
He  had  expressed  concern  over  the  unit  mission  description 

This has never been in question. 

4 

98-01651 

several times during the three years assigned to the unit.  It 
was not until  after  the CY97C board  that any consideration was 
given to changing the description.  Moreover, his group commander 
counseled  him  not  to  submit  a  letter  to  the  board  when  he 
expressed concerns over this matter.  He  (group commander) felt a 
letter would attract negative attention to his record.  This is 
the  prevailing  opinion,  throughout  the  Air  Force,  regarding 
sending  a  letter  to  a  promotion  board.  Although  the  option 
exists,  letters  to  the  board  are  generally  considered  a  last 
resort.  Finally, he  does not  consider the option of  writing a 
letter  to  the  board  a  suitable  substitute  for  a  record 
correction. 

Applicant  further  states  he  must  reiterate  that  the  53  WG's 
dismal  promotion  rate  clearly  reflects  the  possibility  that 
command level, as indicated by unit mission description, may have 
impacted promotion.  He has had  the opportunity to discuss his 
nonselection with  several senior officers, AFMPC,  and  have  had 
his records reviewed personally by the HQ ACC/DO.  The conclusion 
has been unanimous that the perceived command level of his staff 
tour was a major factor in nonselection.  HQ AFPC/DPPA  does not 
address  his  contention that  his  records are  incomplete due  to 
inability to include job performance information related to his 
participation  in covert Special Access Required programs.  This 
is the cornerstone of  his appeal, yet no mention  is made by HQ 
AFPC/DPPA  in their advisory opinion.  He  respectfully  requests 
that  the  SAR  program  accomplishments  memorandum,  on  file  at 
SAF/AZZ, be  reviewed and considered as part  of  his  request  for 
promotion reconsideration. 

In further support of his appeal, applicant submits a statement 
from the rater and additional rater on the OPR closing 13  March 
1997 and the Test Group Commander. 

Applicant's complete response, with  attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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.  After 
having  carefully weighed  the  contents  of  the  applicant's  O P R s  
rendered from 1994 through 1997 against the  true nature of  his 
assignments and the caliber of his duty performance, we  believe 
he has not been deprived of an opportunity to fairly compete for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  along  with  his 
peers.  Applicant contends that the unit mission description on 

5 

98-01651 

the contested OPRs is inadequate; 
however, based on the evidence 
submitted, applicant has failed to 
provide sufficient evidence to 
substantiate that the description 
is either in error or unjust. 
The only statement submitted from 
the rating chain is from 
-who 
is the reviewer on the 
OPR  closing 13 March 1997 and 
the senior rater on the PRF.  The 
reviewer states that the unit 
mission  description  is  incomplete;  however,  he  has  failed  to 
state why the description was not changed prior to his approval 
of  the OPR  or what  new information has been provided to him to 
substantiate  that  the  description  in  question  is  erroneous  or 
inadequate.  The  PRF  prepared  for  the  CY97C  Selection  Board 
appears to have been accurately prepared. 

4.  In  summary,  the  applicant  believes  that  his  performance 
during  1994  to  1997  while  participating  in  Special  Access 
Required  (SAR) programs  was  not  accurately  documented  on  his 
performance  reports  and  PRF  prepared  for  the  CY97C  Selection 
We  have  reviewed  the  nature  of  his  assignment,  his 
Board. 
performance  and  accomplishments. 
While  we  understand  the 
restrictions  placed  on  the  rating  chain  members  in  preparing 
these  reports,  we  believe  that  they  adequately  describe  the 
quality of the applicant‘s accomplishments and performance during 
the  periods  in question  and  we  are  convinced  that  he  was  not 
deprived of an opportunity to fairly compete for promotion.  The 
applicant  has  not  provided  sufficient  documentation  to 
substantiate that the unit description on the contested OPRs and 
PRF was either in error or unjust. 

5.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by  Special Selection Board  (SSB).  The Air Force states 
the  time  it  took  to process  the AFCM  20LC was  exorbitant.  We 
note it  took  from 1991 to 1998 for the award in question to be 
processed; therefore, we also agree that the delay was excessive. 
The Air Force also states that they would not object to promotion 
reconsideration by  the  CY97  board.  Since  applicant‘s records 
were not  complete and up  to date at  the time he was considered 
for promotion to lieutenant colonel, we  recommend his corrected 
record be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY97 board. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  to  include  the  Air  Force  Commendation 
Medal,  2nd  Oak  Leaf  Cluster,  for  the  period  31  August  1989 
through  28  February  1991, be  considered  for  promotion  to  the 
grade  of  lieutenant colonel by  Special  Selection Board  f o r   the 
CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

6 

98-01651 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 10 August 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Mr. John J. Nethery, Member 
Mr. Robert W. Zook, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 June 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 25 June 1998. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 July 1998. 

Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Panel Chair 

7 

L 

DEPARTMENT  O F  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  AIR  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

25 JUN 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests changing the unit mission description on the 

15 Jun 95, 13 Mar 96, and 13 Mar 97 officer promotion reports (OPRs) and the promotion 
recommendation form (PRF) (copy attached) submitted to the CY97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) 
lieutenant colonel selection board.  In addition, he requests promotion reconsideration by the 
P0597C board. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends his records are incomplete due to his direct 
participation in covert Special Access Required (SAR) programs.  He, therefore, considers his 
records an inaccurate and false representation of his job performance and impact on mission 
accomplishment.  In addition, the applicant contends his Air Force Commendation Medal, 2nd 
Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM 20LC), was not on file for the board. 

Recommendation.  Partial approval. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  Application is timely filed.  No similar application was submitted under the 

provisTons of AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  We did not 
return the application since the application does not have the required evaluator support 
necessary to challenge the validity of an evaluation report. 

b.  The applicant has one nonselection by the P0597C promotion board.  He was 
again considered by the CY98B (1 Jun 98) (P0598B) lieutenant colonel board; however, the 
results from that board are not releasable at this time. 

c. The governing directives are AFR 36- 10, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Jul96, and 

AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Jul96. 

d.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal brief and two memoran- 
dums from the senior rater and reviewer on the 13 Mar 97 OPR.  We would like to point out that 
this appeal is identical to one previously received on an officer from the same squadron 

(AFBCMR Docket number 97-03680).  As a matter of fact, with the exception of the names of 
the applicants, the two letters from the senior raterheviewer are identical to those received with 
the other applicant’s appeal. 

e.  Air Force policy is 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.  To effectively challenge an OPR or PRF, it is important to hear from all the evaluators 
on the contested report--not only for support, but for clari fication/explanation.The applicant 
provided a letter of support from the reviewerhater of the most recent OPR and PRF.  However, 
we do not find any evidentiary support from any other members of the rating chain of the 
contested reports.  The applicant has not provided the necessary information to substantiate his 
contention the unit mission description on the reports was erroneous or inadequate. We, 
therefore, conclude the contested reports to be accurate as written. 

f.  The reviewerhenior rater from the most recent OPRPRF states in his memoran- 
dum the unit mission description was incomplete because it did not reflect the full scope of the 
unit’s responsibilities, or the fact the unit had “command level’’ equivalency.  However, he does 
not admit how he was hindered from submitting the original report with a fitting unit mission 
description when he wroteh-eviewed and signed the original OPR and PRF.  Further, he does not 
say he has new information now that was previously unavailable to him when the contested 
reports became matters of record.  If he knew the unit mission description was wanting, why did 
he knowingly submit a report that did not adequately convey the breadth and importance of the 
individual’s duty performance or accurately describe the unit’s mission? 

g.  What is not addressed by either the applicant or the lone evaluator is what unit 

mission description was used on the OPRs rendered for other officers assigned to the same unit 
during the period of the contested report.  Since this appeal is identical to that of another officer 
in the same squadron, it is apparent the same unit mission description was used for not only these 
two officers, but probably for any other officer eligible for the P0597C board as well.  The 
applicant has not h i s h e d  evidence the unit mission description on his OPR differed from that 
of other officers in the unit thereby indicating his OPR was erroneous.  However, if the applicant 
can provide documentation proving his unit mission description differed from any other officer 
eligible for the P0597C board, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on 
any such evidence presented to the AFBCMR prior to their decision being rendered. 

h.  Each officer eligible for promotion consideration by the P0597C board received an 

officer preselection brief (OPB) several months prior to the date the board convened in July 97. 
Written instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer before the central selection 
board specifically instruct himher to carefully examine the brief and associated records for 
completeness and accuracy.  The instructions also provide addresses, and in most cases, phone 
numbers for each area responsible to assist the officer who identifies discrepancies. If any errors 
are found, he/she must take corrective action prior to the selection board, not after it.  The 
instructions specifically state, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board 
in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in 
hisher records and could have taken timelj corrective action ” (emphasis added).  We contend 

2 

Q 

, 

the officer did not show proper diligence prior to the promotion board.  He has been aware of the 
OPR unit mission description for almost three years because the same mission description was 
used on each of the OPRs rendered to him for each contested reporting period.  In addition, if he 
felt the P0597C board may have had the perception the mission description was inadequate on 
the reports, or that he was now working at a subordinate command level due to the reorganiza- 
tion, he could have exercised his option to write a letter explaining the contested issues to the 
board president.  However, we find no evidence he wrote any such letter to the board prior to his 
original consideration.  We, therefore, are opposed to the board changing the unit mission 
description on the last three OPRs and most recent PRF and, therefore, also oppose SSB 
consideration. 

i.  There is no clear evidence the unit mission description negatively impacted his 

promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) 
(including the PRF, OPRs, 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 profes- 
sional military education. We are not convinced the contested OPRs and PRF caused the 
applicant’s nonselection. 

ntends the AFCM 20LC was submitted in conjunction with 
nd coincided with the deactivation of the Group.  He states 
the award was never processed and not included with his records when it was considered by the 
board.  Even though the special order was published on 28 May 98 and the citation was filed in 
his record on 29 May 98, we note the closeout of the award was Feb 9 1.  As such, we believe the 
time it took to process this was exorbitant, and we would not object to promotion reconsideration 
by the P0597C board on this issue. 

Summary.  Based on the lack of evidence provided regarding the contested PRF and OPRs, 

we recommend denial.  However, as discussed in paragraph j above, we would not object to 
promotion reconsideration by the P0597C on the decoration issue. 

Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

3