RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02300
INDEX CODE: 111.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods 21 March
1992 through 20 March 1993, 21 March 1993 through 20 March 1994, and 21
March 1994 through 20 March 1995, be declared void and replaced with
reaccomplished reports covering the same period.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OPRs did not include appropriate recommendations for PME. As stated by
raters, this was either due to an oversight by the rater due to a policy
change (20 March 1993) or due to the misconception that this statement
would be a prohibited veiled promotion statement (20 March 1994, 20 March
1995).
In support of the appeal, applicant submitted a copy of an AF Form 948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; a memorandum from
AFPC/DPPPA; statements from the rating chain members of the contested
reports with the exception of the reviewer of the 20 March 1995 OPR, and
reaccomplished reports.
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
major.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C lieutenant colonel board which convened on
21 July 1997. He was considered and not selected for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the the CY98B lieutenant colonel board which
convened on 1 June 1998.
On 14 September 1998, based on a correction to his Promotion Recommendation
Form (PRF) for the CY97C Board, applicant was considered and selected for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board
(SSB) for the CY97C lieutenant colonel board.
OPR profile since 1991, follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
20 Mar 91 Meets Standards
20 Mar 92 Meets Standards
*20 Mar 93 Meets Standards
*20 Mar 94 Meets Standards
*20 Mar 95 Meets Standards
20 Mar 96 Meets Standards
20 Mar 97 Meets Standards
3 Mar 98 Meets Standards
*Contested Reports
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and
states that there has never been a prohibition on PME recommendation
statements since the implementation of the Officer Evaluation System (OES).
PME recommendations are considered optional statements. They quote AFR 36-
10, para 7a, states in part, “...recommendations to select for a particular
assignment, PME, augmentation, continuation, or indefinite reserve status
are appropriate...) Therefore, the omission of the statements on the
original reports was not erroneous.
In reference to the applicant being considered for SSB, they state that
there is no clear evidence that omission of an optional statement
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity. Central boards evaluate the
entire officer selection record(OSR)...assessing whole person factors...
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. They are not
convinced the omission of the PME statements from the three contested OPRs
caused the applicant’s nonselection. Therefore, they are strongly opposed
to the applicant receiving SSB consideration on this issue.
Based on the evidence provided, they recommend denial of applicant’s
request.
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 states that he was unaware
of the importance of PME recommendations, as were his raters, until his
records were reviewed at AFPC. He states that all the rating officials
from these OPRs clearly admit that the omission of these statements was an
oversight that needs to be corrected.
In reference to the Air Force’s statement that the statements are optional
and not a determining factor, he states that they fail to realize reality
does not always match regulation. In reference to the Air Force’s
statement that there never has been a prohibition on PME recommendations
since the implementation of the OES, he states that they are simply unaware
of unwritten, local policies that have been in place, often in error. He
did not state that this was a formal USAF policy, only that he request
correction of an error due to a misunderstanding of that policy be
corrected.
He further states that it is not too late, and correction of these OPRs can
make a difference. His record is his only representative at USAF level
boards. He strongly urge the board to make it an accurate history of his
performance.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing evidence of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been a victim of error
or injustice. While the applicant has submitted statements from the rating
chain members, these statements do not provide sufficient information to
substantiate that a policy existed prohibiting PME recommendations on
performance reports. In view of the above findings and in the absence of
more detailed statements from these individuals, we do not recommend
favorable action on this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 26 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 11 Sep 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 98.
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, dated 6 Oct 98, w/atchs.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00410 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO SEP 2 9 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 13 August 1993 and 4 June 1994, be replaced with the reaccomplished reports provided; and, that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C (21 Jul 97) Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0597C), with the corrected...
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...
The additional raters statements only provide statements to be added to the contested reports. They find it interesting to note that both of the evaluators on the 29 June 1990 OPR made a PME recommendation, and the additional rater on the 29 June 1991 OPR made a command recommendation. d APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant's counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states: "First, the Air Force argues that applicant's raters and additional raters all want to add...
His corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board. As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Nov 98.
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...
On the contrary, the issue here is whether any error has occurred within an internal Air Force promotion recommendation procedure (unlike Sanders, this applicant has not proven the existence of any error requiring correction) , wherein the final promotion recommendation (DP, Promote, Do Not Promote) cannot exist without the concurrence of the officers who authored and approved it. The attached reaccomplished PRF, reflecting a promotion recommendation of IIDefinitely Promote (DP) , be...
Had he properly reviewed his OPB at that time, he could have written a letter to the CY97C board president to ensure the information was present for the CY97C board's review - especially if the PME entry was important to his promotion consideration. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C . The Air Force has indicated that the entry for the Brazilian PME course was missing from the applicant's Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY97C board.