. 

,

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-02097 

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 1 16), it is directed that: 

tary records of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
be corrected to show that: 

The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for 
the period 27 April 1995 through 26 April 1996 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed 
from his records. 

a. 

b.  The  attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, 
rendered for the period 27 April 1995 through 26 April 1996, reflecting the last sentence in 
Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, “ACSC and AFIT a must!”,  be placed in the 
Officer Selection Record (OSR) in its proper sequence. 

The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for 
the period 27 April 1996 through 26 April 1997 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed 
from his records. 

c. 

d.  The attached Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, 
rendered for the period 27 April 1996 through 26 April 1997, reflecting the last sentence in 
Section VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, “Absolute must for ACSC and AFIT.”,  be 
placed in the OSR in its proper sequence. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02097 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

SEP  0 2  1998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.  The Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs) closing 26 April  1996 
and 26 April 1997, be removed from his records and replaced with 
the reaccomplished reports he has provided. 

2.  His record, to include the reaccomplished OPRs, be considered 
for promotion by  Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the Calendar 
Year 1998A  (CY98A) Chaplain Central Major Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The  lack  of  PME  recommendations  on  the  contested  O P R s   give  an 
inaccurate  and  unjust  picture  of  him  and  place  him  at  an 
unintended  competitive  disadvantage. 
In  addition,  the  OPR, 
closing 26 April  1996, does not contain important data from his 
assignment as Senior Protestant Chaplain at 

that demonstrates his strong leadership capabilities. 

In  support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  the 
contested  OPRs,  reaccomplished  O P R s ,   and  statements  from  the 
rating officials of both OPRs. 
The applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of 
captain. 

The  applicant-  was  considered  and  not  selected  for  promotion  to 
the grade of major by the CY98A Chaplain Central Major Selection 
Board. 

On  31  July  1998,  the  Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board  (ERAB) 
granted 
omitted 
accomplishments  from  his  previous  assignment  in  Section  IV, 
Impact  on Mission  Accomplishment,  of  the  OPR,  closing 26 April 
1996  and  consideration  for  promotion  by  an  SSB.  However,  the 

applicant's 

include 

requests 

to 

two 

ERAB  denied  his  request  to  revise  other  portions  of  the  OPR, 
closing 26 April  1996 and  substitute the OPR,  closing 26 April 
1997 with a revised report. 

The applicant is scheduled to be considered for promotion to the 
grade of major by an SSB in September 1998 for the CY98A Chaplain 
Central Major Selection Board. 

A resume of applicant's  performance profile, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

26 Apr 90 
26 Oct 90 
26 Apr 91 
26 Apr 92 
26 Apr 93 
26 Apr 94 
26 Apr 95 
*  26 Apr 96 
*  26 Apr 97 
26 Apr 98 

*  Contested reports 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 
Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

not  only  for  support  but 

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application and states that they concur with the decision of the 
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate 
ERAB. 
as written when  it becomes  a matter of  record.  To effectively 
challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of 
the  rating  chain  - 
for 
clarification/explanation.  Although  the  applicant  provided 
support  from  the  rating  chain,  they  did  not  explain  why  the 
information  contained  in  the  reaccomplished  versions  of  the 
contested OPRs was not available when the reports were initially 
tendered.  Furthermore, none of the supporters of the applicant's 
appeal explain how they were hindered  from rendering a  fair and 
accurate assessment of his performance prior to the report being 
made a matter of record. 
AFPC/DPPA  notes  that  the  applicant  contends  the  missing  PME 
recommendation on the OPR, closing 25 April  1997, may have been 
viewed negatively by the CY98A board.  He bases his contention on 
a  belief  that  promotion  board  composition  has  significantly 
changed from a Chaplain to a line officer composite.  They do not 
agree.  AFPC/DPPPAE's research with the Air Force Selection Board 
Secretariat  revealed  no  changes  in  the  composition  of  the 
Chaplain promotion boards  since Apr  92-some five years prior  to 
the  closeout  date  of  the  contested  report. 
The  five  panel 
members  (line officers  and  Chaplains)  discuss  the  competitive 

. .  

category,  (i.e, the  opportunity  for  and  importance  of  PME  and 
advapce academic education, etc.), prior to the live scoring of 
the records.  Although the applicant considers the omission of a 
recommendation for PME to be a discriminator, they find no clear 
evidence  that  its  absence  negatively  impacted  his  promotion 
opportunity. 

In regard to applicant's  request that a PME statement be added on 
the OPR,  closing 26 April  1996, AFPC/DPPPA,  states that Central 
boards  evaluate  the  entire  officer  selection  record  (OSR) 
(including  the  promotion  recommendation  form,  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  PME.  A 
PME  recommendation is not  a  determining factor or  guarantee of 
promotion selection by the promotion board.  The selection board 
had  his  entire  OSR  that  clearly  outlines  his  accomplishments 
They  are  no  more 
since  the  date  he  came  on  active  duty. 
convinced the omission of  the'PME 
statement  from either of the 
OPRs was the sole cause of the applicant's  nonselection any more 
than  they  are  convinced  his  nonselection  flaws  the  contested 
reports.  Therefore, they recommend denial of his requests. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C .  

rce evaluation and  states that 
should be  included in the OPR 
pproved correction of lines 8 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed 
all of his service at 
closing 26 April  1996. 
and  9 in Section  IV to reflect his performance 
e  same  OPR  also 
however,  lines  7  and  8  in  Sect 
It  would  be 
pertain  to  his  performance  at 
entation  of  his 
consistent  and  just  to  includ 
nt  and  key overseas assignment.  His 
performance  in 
represented over 25% of the reporting 
performance at 
The  addition  of  this  significant  information  would 
period. 
clearly  and  justly  precipitate  a  reassessment  of  his  overall 
performance  and  leadership potential.  He  notes  that  both  the 
rater and the additional rater felt it was only fair to reflect 
this reassessment by modifying line 9 of Section VI and line 5 of 
Section VI1 of the OPR. 
In regard to the OPR, closing 26 April 1997, the applicant states 
that the advisory opinion recommended against the inclusion of a 
PME statement on  the basis  that  "A PME recommendation is not  a 
determining  factor  or  guarantee  of  promotion  selection  by  the 
promotion board."  While a PME recommendation is certainly not a 
"guarantee" of promotion, there is clear and compelling evidence 
that  it  plays  a  significant  role  in board  deliberations.  Both 

verbal  and  written  promotion  board  debriefs  have  repeatedly 
stressed  the  importance  of  a  consistent  pattern  of  PME 
recommendations  in  candidates'  records. 
Additionally,  he 
consulted  a  number  of  senior officers with  extensive promotion 
board  experience  and  they  all  reinforced  the  emphasis  that  is 
placed  on  PME  recommendations. 
In  fact,  some  board  members 
recalled  instances  where  a  promotion  panel  spent  a  significant 
amount  of  time  in  an  effort  to  "divine" the  rater's  hidden 
message when a PME recommendation was missing after a consecutive 
string of them. 

The applicant's  complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

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.  In 
this respect, we note that statements have been provided from the 
rating chain members on the contested reports.  These statements 
clearly  substantiate  that  the  reports  in  question  give  an 
inaccurate assessment  of  the applicant's  performance  during  the 
contested periods.  In addition  to  providing  strong  supporting 
statements  on  the  applicant's  behalf,  these  senior  Air  Force 
officials  have  reaccomplished  the  reports  to  more  accurately 
reflect their overall assessments.  The rating chain members also 
indicate that  PME  recommendations were  erroneously omitted  from 
the  reports  and,  that  important  data  regardin 
nt' s 
assignment  as  Senior  Protestant  Chaplain  at 
was 
erroneously  omitted  from  the  OPR  closing  26  April  1996. 
Therefore, in the absence of a basis to question the integrity of 
the  rating  chain  members, we  believe  the  benefit  of  any  doubt 
should  be  resolved  in  the  applicant's  favor  by  correcting  his 
records  to  the  extent  indicated  below. 
Based  on  these 
corrections,  we  would  normally  recommend  reconsideration by  an 
SSB.  However, we  note  that  the  ERAB  has  already  approved  the 
applicant  for  promotion  consideration  by  an  SSB  scheduled  to 
convene in early September of 1998. 

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  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) ,  AF 
Form 707B, rendered for the period 27 April 1995 through 26 April 
1996 be, declared void and removed from his records. 

4 

b.  The  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) ,  AF 
Form 707B, rendered for the period 27 April 1995 through 26 April 
1996,  reflecting  the  last  sentence  in  Section VII,  Additional 
Rater Overall Assessment, "ACSC and AFIT a must ! I '   ,  be placed  in 
the Officer Selection Record  (OSR) in its proper sequence. 

c.  The  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) ,  AF 
Form 707B, rendered for the period 27 April 1996 through 26 April 
1997 be declared void and removed from his records. 

d.  The  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) ,  AF 
Form 707B, rendered for the period 27 April 1996 through 26 April 
1997,  reflecting  the  last  sentence  in  Section  VII,  Additional 
Rater Overall Assessment, "Absolute must  for ACSC and AFIT.", be 
placed in the OSR in its proper sequence. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 27 August  1998, under the provisions of A F I  
36-2603: 

Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner  (without vote) 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 11 Aug 98, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Aug 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Aug 98. 

&+ 

DAVID W.  MUL  REW 
Panel Chair 

. .  

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  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  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPA 

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

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2603 Application- 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests special selection board (SSB) consideration by the 
CY98A (P0498A) (1 2 Jan 98) chaplain central major selection board with new versions of the 
26 Apr 96 and 26 Apr 97 officer performance reports (OPRs). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant believes the 26 Apr 96 OPR is erroneous because it does 
not reflect his demonstrated leadership capabilities as a Senior Protestant Chaplain while serving 
at 
included a recommendation for Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) rather than 
Professional Military Education (PME). 

He believes the 26 Apr 97 OPR is in error because his raters 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant filed a similar appeal under AFI 36- 
240 1 , Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was partially approved by 
the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).  The ERAB denied the applicant’s request to 
replace the 26 Apr 96 and 26 Apr 97 OPRs in their entirety.  Instead, they approved a revision 
to the last two lines in Section IV, IMPACT ON MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT, on the 
26 Apr 96 report only.  A copy of the ERAB’s 3 1 Jul98 decision memorandum is included 
with our advisory.  We concur with their assessment.  The applicant is scheduled to receive 
SSB consideration by the P0498A chaplain’s board with the corrected 26 Apr 96 OPR filed in 
his officer selection record (OSR) in Sep 98.  The applicant requests the Board expedite this 
request to preclude an additional reconsideration by the P0498A board.  The applicant has 
one nonselection to the grade of major by the P0498A board. 

b.  AFI 36-2501 , Officer Promotion and Selective Continuation, 1 Mar 96, is the 

governing directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant provides memorandums from his rating 

chain for both OPRs; letters from his former rater; a copy of an AF Form 948, Application for 

CorrectiodRemoval of Evaluation Reports; copies of the contested reports; and revised 
versions of the contested reports. 

d.  The applicant requests the board replace both the 26 Apr 96 and 26 Apr 97 OPRs 

with reaccomplished versions.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of  record.  To effectively challenge an OPR, it is necessary 
to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not  only for support, but for 
clarificatiodexplanation.  Although the applicant provided support from the member’s rating 
chain on the contested OPRs, they did not explain why the information contained in the 
reaccomplished versions of the contested OPRs was not available when the reports were 
initially rendered.  As such, the ERAB approved a change to the last two lines in Section IV, 
IMPACT ON MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT, on the 26 Apr 96 OPR only.  The rest of the 
changes appear to be efforts to “beef up” the original report.  Evaluation reports receive 
exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record.  Any report can be rewritten to be 
more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s promotion potential. 
But the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record.  None of the 
supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain how they were hindered from rendering a fair 
and accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance prior to the report being made a 
matter of record.  The appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances 
for promotion.  It appears this is exactly what the applicant is attempting to do--recreate 
history. 

e.  The applicant contends the missing PME recommendation on his 26 Apr 97 OPR 

may have been viewed negatively by the P0498A central selection board.  He bases his 
contention on a belief that promotion board composition has significantly changed from a 
Chaplain to a line office composite.  We do not agree.  HQ AFPCDPPPAE’s research with 
the Air Force Selection Board Secretariat revealed no changes in the composition of the 
Chaplain promotion boards since Apr 92-some  five years prior to the closeout date of the 
contested report.  The five panel members (line officers and Chaplains) discuss the 
competitive category, i.e., the opportunity for an importance of PME and advance academic 
education, etc., prior to the live scoring of the records.  Although the applicant considers the 
omission of a recommendation for PME to be a discriminator, we find no clear evidence that 
its absence negatively impacted his promotion opportunity. 

f.  We note the applicant also requested the board add a PME statement on the 

26 Apr 96 report.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) 
(including the promotion recommendation form, 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 professional military education.  A PME recommendation is 
not a determining factor or guarantee of promotion selection by the promotion board.  The 
selection board had his entire officer selection record that clearly outlines his 
accomplishments since the date he came on active duty.  We are no more convinced the 
omission of the PME statement from either of the OPRs was the sole cause of the applicant’s 
nonselection any more than we are convinced his nonselection flaws the contested reports. 

.. 

’ ”  

We, therefore, are strongly opposed to the applicant receiving SSB consideration on this 
issue. 

g.  We concur with the changes HQ AFPCDPPPAE approved only and do not 

believe any of the applicant’s other requests are warranted. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is 

appropriate. 

’%F 

MARIANNE STERLING, 
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

Lt Col, 

Attachment: 
HQ AFPCDPPPAE Ltr, 3 1 Jul98 

cc: 
SAFMIBR 

MEMORANDUM FOR  375 MSSDPMPE 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2601 Decision: 

Reports Closing:  26 Apr 96 and 26 Apr 97 

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board partially approved the AFI 36-2401 application on 
The Board approved his request to include the two omitted accomplishments 

from his previous assignment in Section IV of the 26 Apr 96 report; howe 
requests to revise other portions of that report, as well as substitute his 26 
revised report, were denie 
attached corrected report 
his master selection recor 
providing members co 
assist you in counseli 
portions of the application. 

26 Apr 96 report currently on file and insert the 
record.  We’ve made the necessary correction to 
e, the Military Personnel Flight is responsible for 
plication submitted under AFI 36-2401.  As such, to 
on the denied portions, this is our assessment of those 

The Board wasn’t convinced b 

documentation.  While the Board 

agreed to add the missing accomplishments to Section IV on his 26 Apr 96 report, they were not 
convinced that those accomplishments warranted a rewrite to Sections VI and VI1 of the report. 
When otherwise valid requests are being made to correct errors in a report, they cannot be used 
as an opportunity to embellish other areas of the report without substantialjustification for the 
changes-the remainder of the report must be verbatim as the original.  In this case, only three 

final report at- 
eporting period on the contested report was for his 

(26 Apr 95) and his arrival 

As such, the Board concluded that three months and two missing 

accomplishments doesn’t warrant a rewrite to other sections of the contested report (especially 
when the revised comments in those sections focus on his assignment a-information 
the rating chain had available when they rendered the original report). 

As for 

appeal to his 26 Apr 97 report, the Board found that the basis 
tates, “Now that our Chaplain’s promotion board 
of the appeal has no merit 
has changed to a line officer majority, Chaplain raters are having to adjust their writing style to 
adequately reflect what it is they are wanting to convey for the ratee.”  Our research with the AF 
Selection Board Secretariat, however, found that the composition of the Chaplain promotion 
boards has not changed since Apr ‘92-some  five years prior to the close-out date of the 
contested report.  Further, while the majority of the board is comprised of line officers, there are 

Chaplains on the board and before the scoring of live records begins, there is discussion between 
the five panel members about the competitive category &e., the opportunity for/importance of 
PME and advanced academic education, etc.).  A willingness by evaluators to change or void a 
report isn’t a valid basis for doing so unless there is also clear evidence of error or injustice being 
involved, nor are retrospective views of how a report may affect future career opportunities. 

2 

Based on the approved change to the 26 Apr 96 report, the Chief, Promotion, Evaluation  & 

Recognition  Division, approved the Special Selec  ‘ 
HQ AFPCDPPPAB, DSN 487-4505, will schedu 
reconsideration.  Approximately 30 days in advan 
the specific date the SSB will convene.  Now is t 

omotion reconsideration request. 
for the next available promotion 
1 be notified by message of 
hould review his record 
cord’s accuracy is a personal 

y required corrective action as soon as possible. 

with a copy of this memorandum 
erial evidence and reapply under AFI 

After counseling, please provid 
announcing the Board’s decision.  He 
36-2401 for the denied portions of his application, but the original documentation should be 
included with the new application.  While we cmnot guarantee a favorable decision will result 
from the additional evidence submitted by the member, we will ensure the case is processed as 
fast as possible.  Another avenue available is to appeal under AFI 36-2603 to the AFBCMR; 
however, appropriate supporting documentation and evaluator statements may also enhance his 
chance for a 
please conta 

e AFBCMR.  If you have any questions or concerns, 
Q AFPCDPPPAE, at DSN:- 

MARIANNE STEIUING, Lt Col, USAF 
Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

Attachments: 
1.  Corrected Report, 26 Apr 97 
2.  CaseFile 

cc : 
HQ AMC/DPPFP