AIR FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 

95-01732 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

3UL 2 4 I998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  nonselection  by  the  CY94A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central 
Selection Board, which convened on 11 Oct  94, be set aside; the 
Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) prepared for consideration by 
the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board be voided and replaced with a 
reaccomplished  PRF;  and,  he  be  given  Special  Selection  Board 
(SSB) consideration by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His prior  nonselection to the  grade  of  lieutenant colonel was 
erroneous, inequitable, and unjustified because he was part of a 
suspect promotion process which has been officially acknowledged 
by the Air Force; that suspect process involved the abuse of the 
PRF.  The  PRF was improperly used in his case.  In addition, he 
was denied proper PRF consideration because he was not permitted 
to  function  in  a  major's  position,  the  limitation  of  his 
assignments  due  to  his  enrollment  in  the  Exceptional  Family 
Members  Program  (EFMP) ,  and his  graduate degree was  improperly 
described. 
In support  of  his  appeal, the  applicant provided  his counsel's 
brief,  copies  of  the  original  and  reaccomplished  PRFs,  a 
statement from his former rater, and other documents associated 
with the matter under review. 

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
indicates that the applicant retired, effective 1 Sep 97, in the 
grade of major.  He was  credited with  18 years, 2 months, and 
10 days of active duty service. 

. 

* .  

I 

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1985 follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 
2 Mar 85 
2 Mar 86 
21 Sep 86 
16 Dec 86 
26 Jun 87 
12 Jan 88 
12 Jan 89 
6 Jul 89 
6 Jul 90 
6  Jul 91 
24 May 92 
24 May 93 
#  24 May 94 

EVALUATION 
1-0-1 
1-0-1 
0-0-1 
Training Report 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top Report -  CY94A (11 Oct 94) Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Evaluation  Boards  Section,  AFMPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed  this 
application and recommended denial.  DPPPEB indicated that they 
verified  that  the Secretary of  the Air  Force  Inspector General 
(SAF/IG)  did  conduct  an  inquiry  which  confirmed  that 
inappropriate information and procedures were used  in preparing 
PRFs  within  the  Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations 
(AFOSI) management  level;  however,  this  investigation  did  not 
result  in  positive  findings  of  the  use  of  inappropriate 
"mini-boardsl' in  the  PRF  process  during  the  CY94  Lieutenant 
Colonel cycle. 
DPPPEB noted  the  applicant's allegations that  the  senior rater 
used the ratee's age and duty position as discriminators in the 
PRF process , and possibly favored ''younger1' individuals or majors 
who  were  actually  occupying  "major1' positions  for advancement. 
According to DPPPEB, those allegations lack substantive evidence 
and, therefore, cannot be validated without senior rater support. 
Additionally,  a  letter  of  support  provided  by  the  applicant's 
rater stated of  the senior rater, ''1 was aware of  the absolute 
integrity with  which  Brigadier  H---  approached  the  process  of 
reviewing the Record  of  Performance of  those eligible, and was 
satisfied that  the  Promote  recommendation that  he  received was 
the result of a fair process.'' 

DPPPEB indicated that the applicant challenged the final wording 
of the narrative portion of the PRF.  They could only address the 
technical aspects of this complaint.  First of all, the fact that 
the  senior  rater  failed  to  adopt  the  draft  recommendation  as 
submitted  by  the  rater  is  in  total  compliance  with  Air  Force 

2 

AFBCMR 95-01732 

directives.  Although  suggestions  for  PRF  recommendations from 
subordinate  supervisors  are  encouraged,  the  senior  rater  is 
Aga in ,  the 
solely  responsible  for  completion  of  the  PRF. 
applicant's rater stated his support of the senior rater's final 
decision. 

DPPPEB  noted  the  applicant's  contention  that  he  was  unfairly 
advantaged  by  "specific  wording, If 
"Cryptic  messagesv1 and 
"gimmicks"  contained on the PRF which  !la selection board  should 
not have to interpret."  DPPPEB indicated that they have reviewed 
this  PRF  in  detail  and  find  no  evidence  to  support  this 
allegation.  The only technical flaw contained in this PRF is the 
use  of  uppercase  to  add  emphasis  to  the  comments  "A MUST  FOR 
PROMOTION!11, and  "MUST PROMOTE NOW; SEND TO S S S ! " .  
Some senior 
raters  and  management  used  rank  eligibles  to  strengthen a  PRF 
( L e .  Ranks  in  the  top  10 percent  in  this  command).  The  OES 
Review Group looked at  these l'super promote"  comments and noted 
they were not being used consistently throughout the Air Force. 
Although these statements were never prohibited or encouraged by 
the  regulation, the  group recommended that  only  senior raters, 
not  management  levels, could make  such statements.  They noted 
senior  raters  are  solely  responsible  for  making  promotion 
recommendations. 

Regarding  the  applicant's  statement  that  the  senior  rater's 
recommendation was  additionally arbitrary due  to  the  fact  that 
his  professional  contact  with  the  applicant  was  virtually 
nonexistent, DPPPEB  indicated that Air  Force directives do not 
require the senior rater to have personal knowledge of the ratee. 
Although the governing regulation states the senior rater will be 
knowledgeable of  the ratee's most  recent duty performance, this 
information  may  be  obtained  from  the  record  of  performance, 
subordinate  supervisors,  or  other  reliable  sources  of 
information. 

In DPPPEB's view,  there  has  been  no  evidence provided  by  this 
applicant  to  substantiate receiving anything but  the  same fair 
and equitable treatment in the PRF process that was provided to 
each  officer  meeting  the  board. 
Although  he  did  receive  a 
"Definitely Promotell recommendation from his supervisor, a review 
of  the  Management  Eligibility  Listing  (MEL) from  that  board 
reflects  the  senior  rater  had  25  IPZ  eligibles  with  a  DP 
allocation rate of 40%,  which resulted in the award of 10 IIDPs". 
Unfortunately, the senior rater's final decision did not result 
in a  rrDP1l promotion recommendation for the applicant.  However, 
this  responsibility  remains  with  the  senior  rater  and  the 
applicant's rater has provided his support for the senior rater 
in this decision. 

According to DPPPEB, the original PRF should stand.  However, if 
the board  does rule to grant  SSB  consideration, they recommend 
the only change allowed be the correction of that portion of the 
narrative  (Section IV) erroneously submitted in uppercase.  The 
applicant has not provided any senior rater or management  level 

3 

AFBCMR 95-01732 

. 

support in this application.  Therefore, the PRF should stand as 
a "Promote". 
A  complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application 
and recommended denial.  DPPPA stated that the advisory opinion 
from AFPC/DPPPEB addressed all of the applicant's allegations and 
supporting  documentation.  However,  as  the  applicant  is  also 
requesting  promotion  reconsideration  by  SSB,  they  added  some 
additional comments. 
DPPPA pointed out the necessity of having both senior rater and 
Management  Level  Evaluation  Board  (MLEB) president  support  in 
order to effectively challenge the validity of a PRF.  In DPPPA's 
view, the applicant has not provided such support.  Although he 
provided  a  letter from his rater, it  only further enforced the 
integrity  of  the  original  PRF.  Except  for  his  own  opinion, 
nothing was submitted to convince them that the original PRF was 
not accurate as rendered.  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.  This evidence has not been submitted.  Based 
on the lack of  justification, they presumed the PRF was correct 
as originally rendered. 
According to DPPPA, the applicant seemed to be under the mistaken 
impression  that  the  selection  board's  review  of  an  officer's 
record stops at  the PRF and that they do not delve any further 
into  the  record.  This  could  not  be  further  from  the  truth. 
While it may be argued that the contested PRF was a factor in the 
applicant's nonselection, there was  no  clear  evidence  that  the 
PRF  negatively  impacted  his  promotion  opportunity. 
Central 
boards evaluate the entire officer record which include the PRF, 
OPRs/OERs,  Training Reports  (TRs) ,  Letters of Evaluation  (LOE), 
decorations, and the officer selection brief  (OSB) .  This allows 
the  board  to  assess  the  whole  person  factors,  such  as  job 
performance,  professional  qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of 
experience,  leadership, and  academic  and  professional  military 
education.  While the PRF may not be worded the way the applicant 
would  like to describe his accomplishments, the selection board 
had his entire record available for their perusal. 

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

In  a  detailed  response,  counsel  indicated  that 
the 
recommendations  for  denial  were  based  on  the  government's 
assertion that  there  was  insufficient evidence  to  substantiate 
that  the  applicant  received  "anything  but  the  same  fair  and 
equitable treatment in the PRF process that was provided to each 

4 

AFBCMR 95-01'132 

. 

z 

officer meeting the board."  While  it may  be  asserted  that  the 
applicant received equitable treatment at the hands of the board 
per  se, the advisory opinions completely  failed to address the 
nexus  of  the  argument  forming  the  basis  of  the  appeal.  That 
contention was that the actions of the senior rater prior to the 
board  improperly,  arbitrarily,  and  capriciously  caused  the 
applicant's opportunity for selection by the board to be greatly 
diminished. 

Counsel's complete response is at Exhibit F. 

Applicant  provided  a  subsequent,  dated  30  Apr  96,  which  is 
attached at Exhibit G .  
By  letter, dated  16  Oct  96, applicant  provided  a  point  paper 
which he believed would help facilitate the Board's understanding 
of the issues which have impacted his nonselection for promotion 
to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He indicated that, while the 
point  paper  was  not  intended  to  substitute  for  the  material 
previously provided to the Board  for consideration, he believed 
it  would  useful  in  summarizing  the  most  salient  issues  raised 
(Exhibit H). 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Pursuant to the Board's request ,  AFPC/DPPPA  again reviewed this 
application  and  the  documents  initiated  to  date  and  again 
recommended  denial.  DPPPA  indicated  that  they  did  not  find 
anything requiring comment in addition to their original advisory 
opinion. 
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit I. 

The  Evaluation  Boards  Section,  AFPC/DPPPEB,  provided  another 
advisory  opinion  and  indicated  that, based  on  the  information 
provided, there was no evidence to support the applicant's claim 
that the  llPromotell recommendation was unjustly given due to his 
assignment to Mountain Home AFB.  Similarly, there was no proof 
that the applicant was unfairly represented by his senior rater. 
The  original  PRF  should  stand  since  the  narrative  comments  in 
Section IV, Promotion Recommendation, provided  an assessment of 
his  performance  which  supported  the 
recommendation 
given in Section IX, Overall Recommendation. 

A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit J. 
The  Assignment  Issues  Division,  AFPC/DPAIO,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  they  found  no  evidence  which 
indicated the applicant was treated improperly based on the fact 
that  his  son  required  specialized  care,  nor  was  there  any 
indication his  son  was  not  provided  the  care  required  by  him 
during the applicant's tour at Mountain Home AFB. 

5 

AFBCMR 95-01732 

>

.

 

. 

. 

A complete copy of the DPAIO evaluation is at Exhibit K. 
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and 
recommended denial.  According  to  JA, the  corrections  process 
requires an applicant to bring evidence to the Board, not  just 
reconfigured arguments.  In their  view,  the  applicant  has  not 
presented  any  new  evidence  warranting  reconsideration  of  his 
request. 
Furthermore,  there  has  been  no  legal  error  or  an 
injustice in this case. 

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit L. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant 
on  11 Aug  97  for  review  and  response.  As  of  this  date,  no 
response has been received by this office  (Exhibit M). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  The 
applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his 
contentions  were  duly  noted. 
However,  we  do  not  find  the 
applicant's  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  of  themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility  (OPRs) .  We did note 
that the contested PRF erroneously contained comments that were 
in  the  uppercase.  However, in  our  view,  this  was  a  harmless 
error.  In view of the above, and  in the absence of  sufficient 
evidence to support a determination that  the applicant's record 
before  the  original  selection  board  was  so  inaccurate  or 
misleading  that  the  board  was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable 
decision  concerning  his  promotability  in  relationship  to  his 
peers, we  agree with  the recommendations of  the OPRs and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant 
has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of  establishing  that  he  has 
suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we  find 
no compelling basis  to recommend granting the relief  sought  in 
this application. 

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown that  a  personal  appearance with  or without  counsel 

6 

AFBCMR 95-01732 

will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD 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 2 8   May  98,  under the provisions of AFI  36- 
2603 : 

Mr. Wayne R. Grade, Panel Chair 
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member 
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 
Exhibit M. 

DD Form 149,  dated 28 Apr 95,  w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFMPC/DPPPEB, dated 2 8   Jul 9 5 .  
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 21 Feb 9 6 .  
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 4  Mar 96. 
Letter, counsel, dated 2 9   Apr 9 6 .  
Affidavit, applicant, dated 30 Apr 96. 
Letter, applicant, dated 16 Oct 96,  w/atch. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 1 4   Jul 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 10 Jul 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPAIO, dated 16 Jul 97. 
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 31 Jul 97. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Aug 9 7 .  

072* 

WAYN  R. G  IE 
Panel Chair 

7 

AFBCMR 95-01732