RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03136
INDEX CODEs: 111.02, 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 1 Jun 96
through 31 May 97 be replaced with a reaccomplished report.
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.
He be given Special Selection Board consideration.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested OPR was not adequately reviewed by his Air Force
Advisor. His rater and additional rater were both in the Navy and
failed to write his OPR consistent with Air Force conventions.
The contested PRF had an old duty title and key duties which were
inconsistent with his duty history RIP due to an errant USSTRATCOM
Form 16 submission which occurred after he had reviewed his records
through AFPC and right before his primary met.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
supportive statements, and copies of the OPR, PRF, and his appeal
application. (Applicant indicated on his application that he was
providing copies of memoranda from the rater and additional rater of
the contested report. However, the memoranda were not a part of this
appeal).
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Dec 93. His Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 4 Oct 81.
Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1988 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
2 Jan 88 1-1-1
4 Mar 88 Training Report
31 Oct 88 Meets Standards
31 Oct 89 Meets Standards
31 Oct 90 Meets Standards
31 Oct 91 Meets Standards
2 May 92 Meets Standards
31 May 93 Meets Standards
31 May 94 Meets Standards
31 May 95 Meets Standards
31 May 96 Meets Standards
* 31 May 97 Meets Standards
6 Apr 98 Meets Standards
* Contested Report
# Top Report - CY97C (21 Jul 97) Lt Col Board.
## Top Report - CY98B (1 Jun 98) Lt Col Board.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. In their view, the applicant failed to show
why the OPR and PRF were not valid documents and why he did not
attempt to correct the PRF in a timely manner.
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. There
was an interim duty title on the OSB of “Navigator, RC-135” for 971125
that cannot be substantiated by a source document, but there was no
evidence that this interim duty title may or may not be correct.
DPAPS1 stated that, in viewing the applicant’s duty history versus his
source documents, they noted many other errors on the OSB. According
to DPAPS1, a number of corrections were made to the officer’s duty
history.
A complete copy of the DPAPS1 evaluation is at Exhibit D.
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
recommended denial. According to DPPPA, it is Air Force policy that
an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter
of record. DPPPA pointed out that the same rater and additional rater
who wrote the contested OPR also wrote the applicant’s 31 May 96 OPR.
The applicant also provided a memorandum of support from someone
claiming to have been the Air Force advisor on the contested OPR.
Because the reviewer on the OPR was an Air Force officer, an Air Force
advisor was not required. According to DPPPA, the reviewer, as an Air
Force Brigadier General, should have been knowledgeable enough to
address a perceived “inconsistency” created by omission of a “command”
reference. Although the “Air Force advisor” contends he did not have
the opportunity to compare the OPRs filed in the applicant’s unit
personnel record group (UPRG) with the contested OPR, there is no
provision in AFI 36-2402 requiring an Air Force advisor to compare an
OPR with previous reports.
DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that his senior rater reused
the PRF from his below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) consideration with an
erroneous duty title. It is the senior rater’s prerogative to
determine what information from the officer’s record of performance
should be included on the PRF. DPPPA indicated that, although the
applicant provided a memorandum from his senior rater recommending the
P0597C PRF be replaced with a corrected version, the applicant has not
explained what precluded him from having his senior rater correct the
PRF when he received it 30 days prior to his promotion consideration.
More importantly, they find no evidence he wrote a letter to the
P0597C board to make them aware of the “erroneous duty title” on the
PRF. They, therefore, do not believe the officer showed the
appropriate diligence to ensure his record was accurate prior to his
promotion consideration.
DPPPA pointed out that AFI 26-2501, paragraph 6.3.2, states, in part,
“HQ AFPC/DPPP can direct an SSB...if the Secretary of the Air Force
(SAF), or a person acting on behalf of the SAF, determines: the board
did not consider material information that should have been available
in compliance with pertinent Air Force directives and policies.” The
contested duty title, “Chief, National Collection Programs and
Requirements Branch” was present on his 31 May 97 OPR and P0597C OSB,
therefore, present for the board’s consideration.
DPPPA stated they did not agree with the applicant’s belief that the
board members zeroed in on the disparity between the duty title on his
PRF, OPR, and OSB. According to DPPPA, the central board considers an
officer’s entire career when assessing promotion potential. They were
not convinced the disparity between the duty titles caused his
nonselection. DPPPA further indicated that a recommendation for
command, or any job for that matter, is not a determining factor or
guarantee of promotion selection by the promotion board. The
selection board had the applicant’s entire officer selection record
that clearly outlined his accomplishments since the date he came on
active duty. DPPPA was not convinced that the omission of the word
“command” from the 31 May OPR caused the applicant’s nonselection.
Therefore, they were strongly opposed to the applicant receiving SSB
consideration on this issue.
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response, the applicant indicated that he accepted that the
competition level was high. He never thought that the Air Force owed
him 0-5 and he still doesn’t. He only knows that he would make a
great commander and is disappointed he may not get the chance to do
that because of his present rank. He was disappointed when he was
told that he had not made 0-5. He had accepted the results. It was
not until his interview with Lieutenant Colonel S--- that he realized
that he may not have gotten a fair shot. When he found the STRAT Form
16 a few months back, he knew he had not received a fair shot. He had
accomplished his records review as well as the J1 folks from STRATCOM.
He reported the error or oversight on his PRF to his supervisor and
only to him as he did not want to complain or make excuses to anyone
else. He can’t change the way he handled the situation, but through
the appeals process, he can get the second chance to compete fairly.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility, concerning the applicant’s
request that his OPR closing 31 May 97 and his CY97C PRF be replaced
with a reaccomplished OPR and PRF, and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. Accordingly, his request is not favorably
considered.
4. We did note that DPAPS1 indicated there were a number of
administrative corrections made to the applicant’s duty history.
However, we are not inclined to recommend SSB consideration with a
corrected OSB. The applicant should have received an Officer
Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to the convening of the Board. In our
view, the applicant had a responsibility to ensure that his record was
correct prior to being considered for promotion. Therefore, in the
absence of clear and convincing evidence to support a determination
that the applicant’s record before the original selection board was so
inaccurate or misleading that the board was unable to make a
reasonable decision concerning his promotability in relationship to
his peers, we adopt the Air Force’s rationale and conclude that no
basis exists to recommend favorably action on the applicant’s request
for SSB consideration.
_________________________________________________________________
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 13 Apr 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. James R. Lonon, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Dec 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 4 Jan 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 12 Jan 99
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 Jan 99.
Exhibit G. Letter, applicant, undated.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
Had he properly reviewed his OPBs prior to either of his BPZ considerations, his record would have been accurate for his P0598B in-the-promotion zone consideration. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he believes he is deserving of promotion and he is simply requesting that he be considered for promotion with accurate...
As they have stated, the same errors existed on his P0597C OSB, and the applicant has not explained why he took no action when he received his OPB for that board to get the errors corrected. They noted that with the exception of the 1 Apr 94 error (CMHQ vs. W/B), the same errors the applicant is now pointing out were also in existence at the time of the P0494A board as well. Even though they were in error on the OSB, they were correct on the OPRs.
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the reviewer for the OPR closing 31 Dec 94 signed as Commander of the USAF Air Warfare Center so “Center” is the correct duty command level for this duty entry. This OPR clearly shows that the duty title was incorrect on the OPB for the 950701 entry; therefore, DPAPS1 changed the duty title for this entry in...
What is not addressed by either the applicant or the lone evaluator is what unit mission description was used on the OPRs rendered for other officers assigned to the same unit during the period of the contested report. Since applicant‘s records were not complete and up to date at the time he was considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel, we recommend his corrected record be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY97 board. The applicant requests changing the unit mission description...
The instructions specifically state that officers will not be considered by an SSB if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action. Had he been diligent in maintaining his records, the duty title would have been present on the OSB for the board’s review. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Nov 98.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 98-00545 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 March 1998 for review and comment within 30 days. Essentially, applicant contends that as a result of errors in his records, the Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board was given an inaccurate impression of his record; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are...
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...
DPASA stated that when the applicant’s record met the selection board he was not a corps member, thus, no error occurred (Exhibit D). Therefore, the board had the correct information in evidence when his record was considered by the P0598B board. We noted that the appropriate Air Force office has made the requested duty title corrections to applicant’s assignment history.
He also believes he may have been nonselected because of a perception among the board members that he spent too much time at Kirtland AFB, NM. DPPPA stated that it was the applicant’s responsibility to notify the board of the circumstances surrounding his extended tenure at one location, and the omission of the duty title effective 18 Dec 93 from his OSB if he believed them important to his promotion consideration. ...