RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01407
INDEX CODE: 100, 131
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The Board direct his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the
Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) (8 Jul 96) lieutenant colonel board be
reaccomplished by the former Air Mobility Command’s (AMC) Management
Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) president with an overall “Definitely
Promote (DP)” recommendation in Section IX.
2. As an alternative, that his record, with the corrected PRF,
indicating the proper duty title be directed to meet a Special
Selection Board (SSB).
3. His record be scored at an SSB, but with all PRFs, including
those in the sampling records, withdrawn from the records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His PRF was prepared by his immediate rater and not his senior rater.
This is a direct violation of AFI 36-2402, Section 4.4.1.1, Air Force
Pamphlet (AFP) 36-2404 instructions on the PRF and Air Force Personnel
Center (AFPC) Officer Evaluation System (OES) Training Guide, which
all state clearly and without any question that the senior rater is
tasked to write the PRF. The impact of this violation of these
directives directly led to his nonselection for promotion to
lieutenant colonel.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
24 Jan 80. He is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 91.
Applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Report (OER)/Officer Performance
Report (OPR) profile since 1989 follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
1 Sep 89 Meets Standards
1 Sep 90 Meets Standards
1 Sep 91 Meets Standards
1 Jul 92 Meets Standards
1 Jul 93 Meets Standards
1 Jul 94 Meets Standards
1 Jul 95 Meets Standards
16 May 96 Meets Standards
16 May 97 Meets Standards
22 Mar 98 Meets Standards
The applicant appealed the contested duty title on the PRF on five
separate occasions under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. On 18 Jun 97, the Evaluation
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was convinced by the applicant’s
documentation that the duty title needed correction but did not grant
promotion reconsideration by the CY96C board since their “authority to
grant SSB consideration is restricted to cases in which the evidence
clearly warrants promotion reconsideration.”
Applicant has two nonselections by the CY96C and CY97C (21 Jul 97)
lieutenant colonel boards.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Acting Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this
application and provided a 5-page advisory opinion addressing
applicant’s contentions. DPPPA stated, in part, that it is apparent
that the ERAB determined that correction of the applicant’s duty title
a harmless administrative error and they concur with that assessment.
It still is and they do not support promotion reconsideration with the
corrected PRF showing the corrected duty title filed in his record.
The governing directive is AFR 36-10, OES, 1 Aug 88, as amended. The
directive was in effect at the time the applicant’s PRF was prepared.
Even though a new directive, AFI 36-2402, OES, was issued with an
effective date of 1 Jul 96, it had no bearing on preparation of the
PRFs for the CY96C board.
DPPPA further stated that evaluation reports are considered accurate
as written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is provided.
As such, they 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.
The applicant has provided nothing from the evaluators explaining how
they were hindered from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of
his performance prior to the PRF being made a matter of record. The
appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance chances
for promotion. The burden of proof is on the applicant. As such,
DPPPA is not convinced the contested PRF is not accurate as written
and do not support applicant’s request for removal and replacement.
There is no clear evidence the PRF negatively impacted his promotion
opportunity. Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection
record (OSR) (including the PRF, OPRs, OERs, 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 (PME). DPPPA is not convinced the contested PRF
caused the applicant’s nonselection and recommends denial due to lack
of merit.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided an 8-page
response disagreeing with the advisory opinion (see Exhibit E).
On 4 Feb 99, applicant provided a 1-page addendum in response to the
advisory opinion (see 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.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. We note the statement, dated 30 Oct 97, from the
applicant’s rater who confirms that the senior rater tasked him to
prepare the PRF. However, we also note the statement, dated 5 Jun 98,
from the senior rater of the contested PRF who states that he asked
his division chiefs to give him a “draft” copy of a proposed PRF and
that he personally reviewed applicant’s performance, record, and draft
PRF, including content, style and presentation. He also stated that
the PRF was prepared in total compliance with Air Force instructions.
In view of the above, we find no valid basis for the applicant to have
his PRF rewritten by the MLEB president nor do we find any evidence
that the MLEB president supports such a request. Therefore, we find
no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.
4. The Air Force acknowledges that there was an error on the duty
title of the contested PRF; however, they did not recommend an SSB.
In view of the fact that the OSB contained the correct duty title, we
believe this constitutes nothing more than a harmless error not
warranting an SSB. It is highly unlikely this error was the sole
cause of applicant’s nonselection. Therefore, we find no basis upon
which to recommend favorable action on his request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 6 April 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Jun 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jul 98.
Exhibit E. Letter from applicant, dated 6 Oct 98.
Exhibit F. Letter from applicant, dated 4 Feb 99.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
The revised Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY96C Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (P0596C), with a "Definitely Promote" recommendation, be accepted for file. DPPPEB stated that the applicant had a PRF for the CY94 Lieutenant Colonel Board upgraded to a 'DP" based upon the addition of new information to his record (OPR content change, duty title change and Air Force Commendation Medal updated). Based on the assessments provided by HQ AFPC/DPAISl and HQ AFPC/DPPPEB and...
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03386
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00165
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 June 1998 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection...
According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence presented to support the allegations of "illegal" information being considered in the PRF process. Also, there was no official evidence presented to support allegations of '\special" promote recommendations being used to identify officers who should be selected for promotion by the Central Selection Board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the evidence proves that his PRF was based on an...
In this respect, the Board majority notes that the Evaluation Report Appeal Board ( E M ) corrected the contested OPR by changing the additional rater's PME recommendation from ISS to SSS. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. In the applicant’s case, the information regarding the award was available based upon the announcement date of 24 Feb 97; however, there is no requirement in AFI 36-2402 that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03600
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...