ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03586
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 21 July 1998, the Board considered applicant’s request that the Officer
Performance Report (OPR), closing 19 July 1996, be removed from his records
and he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The Board noted the supportive
statement from the rater of the contested report; however, the Board did
not believe it supported a finding that the contested report was in error
or unjust (Exhibits A through E).
In a letter, dated 22 October 1998, the applicant provided additional
evidence (i.e., statement from rater of contested report) and requested
reconsideration of his appeal.
On 17 December 1998, the Board reconsidered and denied the application
(Exhibit F).
In a letter, dated 15 May 1999, the applicant provides additional evidence
(i.e., statement from additional rater) and requests reconsideration of his
appeal. Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant,
a majority of the Board is not persuaded the contested OPR is in error or
unjust. The statement from the additional rater of the contested report is
duly noted; however, a majority of the Board does not find this statement
sufficient to support removal of the contested report. A majority of the
Board notes that while the additional rater supports the applicant’s
supplemental promotion consideration, he does not address the accuracy of
the report. In the absence of evidence substantiating the contested report
is in error or unjust,a majority of the Board finds no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 20 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
By majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr.
Yonkers voted to correct the records but does not wish to submit a minority
report. The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibits A through E. Record of Proceedings, dated 22 Sep 98,
w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Oct 98, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 99, w/atchs.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that the applicant’s
request for removal of the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 16
July 1996 should be denied.
I am persuaded by the statements of support from the rater and the
additional rater. The rater, an Army officer, indicated that he lacked
an understanding of the Air Force evaluation system and received poor
guidance regarding the preparation of the report and its impact. As a
result, he failed to underscore a series of accomplishments by the
applicant that significantly improved the readiness of a four-star
unified command at MacDill AFB and its area of responsibility. The
additional rater stated he had no disagreement with the rater’s
assertions, and that the applicant was an excellent officer and member of
the USCENTCOM team during the period in question.
Based on the above, and noting the applicant’s overall record of
performance, I believe the benefit of any doubt concerning the accuracy
and fairness of the contested report should be resolved in the
applicant’s favor. Therefore, I agree with the minority member of the
panel and direct that the contested report be declared void and removed
from the applicant’s record. Further, he should receive consideration
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection
Board for all boards for which the contested report was a matter of
record.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR 97-03586
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 116), it is directed
that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to, be corrected to show that the AF Form 707A, Field Grade
Officer Performance Report, rendered for the period 20 July 1995 through
19 July 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.
It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY97C (21
July 1997) and any subsequent boards for which the contested report was a
matter of record.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03586A
If his request is approved, he also requests that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful consideration of the additional statement provided by the rater on the contested report, we are not convinced that the report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s duty...
If his request is approved, he also requests that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful consideration of the additional statement provided by the rater on the contested report, we are not convinced that the report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s duty...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03586
If the additional rater now believes the comments he made are invalid, then why didn’t he provide a statement in support of the applicant’s appeal? The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, applicant restated his contentions concerning his accomplishments and the critical oversight on the part of the evaluators on the contested report. ...
If the additional rater now believes the comments he made are invalid, then why didn’t he provide a statement in support of the applicant’s appeal? The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, applicant restated his contentions concerning his accomplishments and the critical oversight on the part of the evaluators on the contested report. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9701857A1
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01857 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 21 Jul 97, be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluations Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed the application and states the applicant’s claim that his senior rater informed him that the June 1997 OPR and CY97C PRF would be used to get the applicant non-selected is unsubstantiated. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF...
DPPP stated that the letter from the rater supports removal of the contested OPR - it does not support replacing the report with a reaccomplished version. The rater's letter does not substantiate the report, as written, is invalid. After reviewing the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may not have been fairly evaluated by the additional rater/reviewer at the time the report was rendered.
The Air Force has indicated that although a copy of the MSM citation was not in his Officer Selection Record (OSR), the decoration was listed on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) assessed by the Board; therefore, the board members were aware of the award. The Air Force also indicated that central boards evaluate the entire officer record and it is highly unlikely the missing MSM citation from applicant's OSR was the cause of his nonselection. Applicant requests special selection board...
They further note that 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. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...