RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02083
                       INDEX CODE: 111.01

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the  periods  7 December
1993 through 6 December 1994 and 7 December 1994 through  21  May  1995,  be
declared void and removed from her record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period December 1993 through June 1995, she worked for the  World
War II Commemoration Committee.  Her reporting official was an Army  colonel
and her senior rater  was  a  SES-6,  who  was  a  retired  Army  lieutenant
general.  There were no Air  Force  senior  officers  in  the  organization;
thus, neither contested OPR was reviewed by an  Air  Force  senior  officer.
AFI 36-2402,  paragraph  3.8  requires  this  review.   She  had  hoped  the
importance of the committee and the rank and service  of  the  senior  rater
would have outweighed the fact that the contested OPRs were not  written  in
a style consistent with most Air Force OPRs.  Reviews by  senior  Air  Force
officers after the recent colonels’ board made it apparent  that  the  style
of the contested OPRs was in fact detrimental to her record.  If the  senior
Air Force officer review had taken place at the time they were  written,  it
could have  precluded  her  receiving  OPRs  that  negatively  impacted  her
chances for promotion.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement  from  the  Director
of Personnel, HQ 11 WG/DP, indicating his office is the senior reviewer  for
Air Force OPRs in offices within the National Capital  Region  that  do  not
have a senior Air Force officer.  It is their responsibility to  review  the
OPRs  to  ensure  they  meet  Air  Force  standards  and  have  the  wording
consistent with governing directives.  As such, if their Air  Force  advisor
had
reviewed the applicant’s OPRs closing out 6 December 1994 and  21 May  1995,
changes would have been recommended.  The  applicant  has  justification  to
have the OPRs in question removed from her records since a senior Air  Force
official did not review them.

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
lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and nonselected by  the  CY95B  and  CY96B  Colonel
Selection Boards, as a below-the-zone  candidate.   She  has  two  promotion
nonselections by the CY97B and CY98C Colonel Selection Board, as  a  in-the-
promotion-zone candidate.

OPR profile since 1993, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       06 Dec 93             Meets Standards
                      *      06 Dec 94             Meets Standards
                 #    *      21 May 95             Meets Standards
                 ##    21 May 96             Meets Standards
                 ###   21 May 97             Meets Standards
                 ####  21 May 98             Meets Standards

* Contested reports
# Top report at time of CY95B board.
## Top report at time of CY96B board.
### Top report at time of CY97B board.
#### Top report at time of CY98C board.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Acting  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed   the
application and states that other than the  fact  that  the  reports  should
have been reviewed by an Air Force advisor, there is no evidence to  support
any of the applicant’s contentions.  No one offers any  explanation  of  how
or why the reports are inconsistent with most Air Force OPRs,  nor  do  they
indicate how this alleged inconsistency violates AFR 36-10.  They note  that
there is no  allegation  or  evidence  of  any  factual  errors,  inaccurate
information or  prohibited  comments.   Whether  or  not  the  reports  were
detrimental to the applicant’s record or had any
negative impact  on  her  chances  for  promotion  are  purely  speculation.
Finally, the 11 WG/DP states changes would have been recommended  had  their
advisor reviewed the reports; however, he does  not  indicate  what  changes
would have been recommended, and they note that the  officer  (or  officers)
who would  have  been  responsible  for  reviewing  the  contested  OPRs  in
December 1994 and May 1995 is (are) neither identified  nor  heard  from  to
support this contention.  Even then, any changes to the reports  would  have
to have been made by the evaluators (who  also  are  not  heard  from),  and
there is no guarantee (or requirement) that the advisor’s  recommendation(s)
would have resulted in any changes to the reports.   It  is  appropriate  to
consider the applicant’s responsibility for ensuring  the  accuracy  of  her
record and point out that she has had considerable opportunity to, not  only
“discover” the alleged error(s), but also attempt to  correct  the  error(s)
in a timely manner.  In addition to her in-the-promotion-zone  consideration
to colonel  in  December  1997,  the  applicant  was  considered  below-the-
promotion-zone to colonel in October 1995 and December 1996.  In  all  three
instances, she should have  received  an  instruction  sheet  prior  to  the
board, along with a copy of her preselection brief,  reminding  her  of  her
responsibility  to  review  her  OPRs  and  to  address  "all  concerns  and
discrepancies through their servicing Military Personnel  Flight....”  prior
to the board date.  It further states, “Officers will not be  considered  by
a Special Selection  Board  if,  in  exercising  reasonable  diligence,  the
officer should have discovered an error or omission in his/her  records  and
could  have  taken  timely  corrective  action.”   The  applicant  does  not
indicate whether or not she reviewed the contested  reports,  was  aware  of
any perceived inconsistencies  or  inaccuracies,  or  made  any  attempt  to
address or correct  any  perceived  shortcomings.   While  the  reports  are
administratively incomplete (due to the missing advisor  review),  there  is
no  clear  evidence  they   are   inaccurate,   unjust,   or   stylistically
inconsistent with most Air Force OPRs.  Further, there  is  no  evidence  to
support the contention that an advisor would have  recommended  any  changes
to the reports, nor that the evaluators would have  revised  their  comments
based on assumed recommendations.  The advisor’s primary  responsibility  is
to advise the evaluators on Air Force procedures and rating  policy.   While
they may make comments, within the restrictions  imposed  by  AFR  36-10  by
preparing and attaching an AF Form 77, this is rarely done.  In  short,  the
applicant provides no  documentation  to  substantiate  that  the  contested
reports are factually incorrect, that the missing advisor  reviews  resulted
in inaccurate or inappropriate evaluator assessments, nor that  the  reports
would  have  been  subjectively  altered  had  the  advisor   reviews   been
conducted.  Consequently, they don’t believe removing the contested  reports
from the applicant’s records  would  be  appropriate.   In  fact,  in  their
opinion, removal of the reports would actually be more  detrimental  to  the
applicant’s
record as it would create a performance  void  by  eliminating  evidence  of
nearly 18 months of positive accomplishments  and  contributions  (virtually
all  of  her  work  while  assigned  to  the  World  War  II   Commemoration
Committee).  Therefore, they recommend the contested reports be retained  in
her record, without the advisor reviews, as an exception to policy.

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  she  was
unaware of the requirement for a senior Air Force officer  review  of  OPRs.
She became aware of this requirement when she asked senior officers  in  her
chain of command to review her  records  after  the  most  recent  colonel’s
promotion board.  Since receiving the OPRs in  question,  she  has  reviewed
her records numerous times to ensure they were accurate.   Because  she  was
unaware of any discrepancies in her record, she could not  have  been  aware
of any time constraints for filing a report on the  error.   Since  she  was
not aware of the error and the time allocated for reporting  the  error,  it
would be impossible for her to intentionally  lack  diligence  in  reporting
the discrepancy within an appropriate amount of time.  Simply put,  she  was
unaware of the requirement for an Air Force senior  officer  review  of  the
contested OPRs.  Thus, she made no previous attempt to  have  the  contested
OPRs reviewed and corrected.  We know that there are certain  comments  that
should be in an OPR to give it the proper  tone.   These  comments  are  not
prescribed in any publication.  Therefore, they are not a  requirement,  but
they do ascribe to the style that is preferred for OPRs.  Army OPRs  have  a
totally different style than Air Force OPRs.  In the Army, an individual  is
ranked against their peers on the report; therefore, a flashy  word  picture
is not necessary to get the point across  where  that  officer  ranks.   The
reporting official and senior rater for the contested  reports  were  career
Army officers.  AFPC/DPPPA concludes removing the  contested  OPRs  will  be
more detrimental than retaining them in her records.  Removing  the  records
will not be more detrimental.  As you are aware, promotion boards select  or
non-select people for promotion.  A promotion  board  can  do  nothing  more
detrimental than not promote someone.  She  has  already  been  non-selected
for promotion.  Therefore, she cannot agree with, or see how removing  these
contested OPRs from her records will be more detrimental  to  her  continued
progression in the Air Force.

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.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are persuaded that the OPRs closing 6 December 1994  and  21  May
1995 are not an accurate assessment of  applicant's  performance.   In  this
respect, we note the statement provided from the Director of  Personnel,  HQ
11 WG/DP indicating that  if  their  Air  Force  Advisor  had  reviewed  the
applicant’s OPRs closing 6 December 1994 and  21  May  1995,  changes  would
have been recommended.  Based on this statement and because the reports  are
administratively incomplete (due to the missing advisor review),  the  Board
felt compelled to recommend granting the  relief  requested.   However,  the
Board gave the applicant the option of either (1)  including  a  comment  in
her record indicating that the OPRs closing 6 December 1994 and 21 May  1995
had not been reviewed by a senior Air Force officer as prescribed in AFI 36-
2402; or, (2) submit  reaccomplished  OPRs.   The  applicant  has  submitted
reaccomplished OPRs to be placed in her record.  In view  of  the  foregoing
and in  an  effort  to  remove  any  possibility  of  an  injustice  to  the
applicant,  we  recommend  the  contested  reports  be  replaced  with   the
reaccomplished OPRs provided and her  corrected  record  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 1995B and any subsequent boards in which the corrections  were
not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Reports  (OPRs),  AF  Forms
707A, rendered for the periods 7 December 1993 through 6 December  1994  and
7 December 1994 through 21 May 1995, be declared void and removed  from  her
records.

      b.    The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 7 December 1993 through 6 December 1994, reflecting in  Section  VII.
Additional Rater Overall Assessment, last sentence “-A dedicated leader  who
is devoted to taking care of people—send  to  SSS,  then  select  for  group
command!”, be placed in her record in its proper sequence.

      c.    The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 7 December 1994 through 21  May  1995,  reflecting  in  Section  VII.
Additional Rater Overall Assessment, last sentence “-An immense  talent  and
top performer with tremendous potential; ready for  SSS  and  group  command
now”, be placed in her record in its proper sequence.

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the  grade
of colonel by a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Years  1995B
(CY95B) and CY96B Colonel Selection Boards, as a  below-the-zone  candidate,
and by the CY97B and CY98C Colonel Selection Boards, as a  in-the-promotion-
zone candidate.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 4 February 1999 and 14 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

           Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
           Mr. Gregory W. DenHerder, Member
           Mr. James R. Lonon, Member
           Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Jul 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 Oct 98.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 98.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 13 Nov 98 & undated
               w/atchs.





            DOUGLAS J. HEADY
            Panel Chair



AFBCMR 98-02083




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:

            a.   The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), AF
Forms 707A, rendered for the period 7 December 1993 through 6 December 1994
and 7 December 1994 through 21 May 1995, be, and hereby are, declared void
and removed from her records.

            b.   The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for
the period 7 December 1993 through 6 December 1994, reflecting in Section
VII. Additional Rater Overall Assessment, last sentence “-A dedicated
leader who is devoted to taking care of people—send to SSS, then select for
group command!”, be placed in her record in its proper sequence.

            c.   The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for
the period 7 December 1994 through 21 May 1995, reflecting in Section VII.
Additional Rater Overall Assessment, last sentence “-An immense talent and
top performer with tremendous potential; ready for SSS and group command
now”, be placed in her record in its proper sequence.

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the
grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Years 1995B
(CY95B) and CY96B Colonel Selection Boards, as a below-the-zone candidate,
and by the CY97B, CY98C, and CY99A Colonel Selection Boards, as a in-the-
promotion-zone candidate.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency