RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00015
                       INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.00

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Effectiveness Report (OER)  rendered  for  the  period
15 November 1986 through 14 April 1987, be declared void  and  removed
from his record.

2.  He be considered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) by  Special
Selection Boards (SSBs) for the Calendar Years  1997A  and  1998A  ISS
Selection Boards.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance.

The applicant states that notable achievements, many integrals to  the
job description, were  not  included  anywhere  in  the  report.   The
absence of so many achievements clearly  establishes  an  indisputable
pattern of willful neglect and purposeful disregard on the part of the
rater. The rater never provided any  counseling  or  feedback,  either
formally or informally to remedy perceived deficiencies in performance
or conduct.  The evaluation is inconsistent with awards  covering  the
same reporting period and there was  a  personality  conflict  between
himself and the rater.

He also states that despite the years since the contested  report  was
rendered, it continues to negatively impact career  progression.   The
report precluded his selection for Regular Air  Force  Appointment  in
1989, which later caused him to meet a reduction  in  force  board  in
1992, facing a debilitating 75 percent selection rate.  Later in 1994,
the report adversely effected his application for Air Force  Institute
of Technology (AFIT), this according  to  his  career  field  resource
advisor.  The report has effected his ability to successfully  compete
for  squadron  command.   Finally,  the  report  influenced  his  non-
selection for ISS in-residence two years in a row, this  validated  at
his request last year through HQ AFPC records review,  a  review  that
listed the OER as a major contributing factor to his non-selection.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal  statement  and
statements from individuals commenting on his performance.
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.

OER/OPR profile since 1986, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 14 Nov 86        1-1
               *   14 Apr 87      1-1
                 11 Feb 88        1-1-1
                 28 Aug 88        Meets Standards
                 14 May 89        Meets Standards
                 16 May 90        Meets Standards
                  4 Jul 91        Meets Standards
                 30 Apr 92        Meets Standards
                 30 Apr 93        Meets Standards
                  6 Mar 94        Meets Standards
                  1 Dec 94        Meets Standards
                  1 Dec 95        Meets Standards
                 20 Sep 96        Meets Standards
               **  20 Sep 97      Meets Standards
              ***  20 Sep 98      Meets Standards

* Contested report
** Top report reviewed by the CY97A ISS Selection Board
*** Top report reviewed by the CY98A ISS Selection Board

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and  states  that
the applicant has waited over 11 years to file and took no  action  on
the claim before.  The applicant has inexcusably  delayed  his  appeal
and, as a result, the Air Force no longer has documents on  file,  and
this complicates the ability to determine the merits of his  position.
The applicant contends a personality conflict prevented his rater from
rendering an accurate  assessment  of  his  duty  performance.   As  a
result, items 1 and 2 in section III of the contested OER  was  marked
down one block from the right.  The applicant contends the comments in
these two items are inconsistent with the markings.   Without  benefit
of a statement from the rater, they must conclude the rater  evaluated
the applicant accordingly.  They note that the rater on the  contested
OER was also the rater on the applicant’s previous OER  in  which  the
applicant received fire walled ratings.   Apparently,  the  rater  was
familiar with the quality of performance the applicant was capable of,
and it appears there was a decline in performance during the  previous
rating period and the contested period.

Disagreements in the work place are not unusual and, in themselves, do
not substantiate an evaluator cannot be objective.   They  opine  that
subordinates are required to abide by their superior’s decisions.   If
there was a personality conflict between the applicant and  the  rater
that was of such magnitude the rater  could  not  be  objective,  they
believe the additional rater would have known about it since  the  OER
indicates the rater and additional rater were  assigned  to  the  same
location.  The applicant has not provided specific instances based  on
firsthand observation that substantiate the relationship  between  him
and the rater was strained.  Instead, he has provided statements  from
individuals who were in his rating chain  after  he  had  assumed  the
grade of captain,  more  than  two  years  after  publication  of  the
contested OER.  The letters of support and other extraneous  documents
that the applicant provides are not germane to the report in question.
 The testimonials the applicant submits state the evaluators could not
be objective in their assessment of the applicant’s duty  performance.
Nor would they be convinced of their ability to more accurately assess
his performance considering they were not the individuals charged with
performing this responsibility.

The  applicant  contends  the  rater  did  not  include  all  of   his
significant accomplishments on the contested OER.  It  is  up  to  the
rater to determine what  accomplishments  should  be  included  on  an
evaluation report.   If  the  applicant  believed  some  of  his  more
significant accomplishments should have been included, then  he  could
and should  have  contacted  the  evaluators  for  their  support  and
attempted to have the report reaccomplished.  However, statements from
the evaluators from the contested period are conspicuously absent.

The applicant states the rater failed to provide  him  counseling  and
feedback for his deficiency either formally or informally.  Per AFR 36-
10, paragraph 1-13b(1), counseling should be done as the need  arises,
and it is a day-to-day process.  It can be formal or informal,  verbal
or written.  Because of these variables, it is  nearly  impossible  to
document counseling did not occur.  Lack of counseling or feedback, by
itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness  of  a
report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not  provide  counseling  or
feedback, and that this directly resulted  in  an  unfair  evaluation.
The applicant must also supply specific information about  the  unfair
evaluation so the Board can make a reasonable judgment on the appeal.

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   harder   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
appeals process does not exist to recreate history or enhance  chances
for promotion.  Further, a willingness by evaluators to change or void
a report is not a valid basis for doing so unless there is also  clear
evidence of error or injustice being involved.   It  appears  this  is
exactly what the  applicant  is  attempting  to  do—recreate  history.
Further, if the report was going  to  have  a  continuing  detrimental
effect on the applicant’s career as he  believes,  then  they  do  not
believe he would have been selected by the CY96A board.  As such, they
are not convinced the contested OER is not accurate as written and  do
not support the request to void it.

In  order  to  effectively  challenge  an  evaluation  report,  it  is
necessary to hear from all of the members of the  rating  chain.   Not
only  for  support,  but  also  for  clarification/explanation.    The
applicant has failed to provide any information or  support  from  the
rating chain on the contested OER.  In the absence of information from
evaluators, official substantiation of an error or injustice from  the
Inspector General (IG) or  Social  Actions  is  appropriate,  but  not
provided in this case.  They find no evidence the  applicant  filed  a
complaint with either agency.  It appears the report was  accomplished
in direct accordance with  applicable  regulations.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant's request.

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 as for
clarification, his request is for the removal of an OER rendered on 14
April  1987  not   14   April   1997.    Additionally,   he   requests
reconsideration for ISS but only for those boards that  he  originally
met - CY97 AND CY98.  The former wing commander, asked him  in  August
1996 not to compete for the CY96 board as his wing  was  preparing  to
deploy to Operation Joint Endeavor in  support  of  the  Dayton  Peace
Accords in Bosnia.  In his appeal  he  discussed  the  factors,  which
influenced delays in filing.

DPPPA states “the Air Force no longer has documents on file...,”  he’s
confused by this statement, to what documents are they referring?  Any
judicial or non-judicial actions remain a permanent part of a military
record.  He is the one who has had to overcome this issue and come  up
with the documentation in substantiating the merits of  his  position.
The merits of which seek to overturn the one document  the  Air  Force
continues to have on file - the 1987 OER.

He did not see the OER until 14 August 1987.  He  left  XXXXX  AFB  in
April 1987 temporary duty (TDY) to XXXXX AFB, XX enroute PCS to  XXXXX
AB.  He saw the OER for the first time upon his return.

Any decline in performance is misleading, what was in decline was  the
relationship between rater and ratee.  The statements  of  individuals
provide powerful and overwhelming evidence as  to  the  level  of  his
performance, on and off duty, and  during  the  contested  performance
period.  There were at least two instances during the reporting period
when he seriously contemplated making a complaint  against  the  rater
through the chain of command.  Had he filed a complaint, it would most
certainly have risen to  the  additional  rater’s  attention.   As  he
worked in the Social Actions office,  he  certainly  didn’t  have  the
option to make a complaint against the rater who coincidentally served
as the Chief of Social Actions when the report was rendered.  Half way
through the reporting period he received orders  for  XXXXX  AB.   His
relations with the rater seemed to ease considerably and  as  such  he
dropped any notion about making a complaint.  He believed stresses  in
the rater’s personal life, which erupted over the holiday  period  and
extended through January 1987, were at the  heart  of  his  frequently
volatile behavior toward others and himself.

AFPC/DPPPA  staff  may  have  become  confused  when   they   reviewed
statements supplied in support of his appeal.  Statements  from  Major
B, Major H and Dr. S referred to him as “Captain” versus “Lieutenant.”
 He requested statements from Major H and Dr. S in 1992 and Major B in
1995 when he was a captain.  These individuals were assigned with  him
at XXXXXX AFB at the time of the OER’s rendering.

The absence  of  so  many  accomplishments  demonstrates  a  revealing
pattern of willful neglect on the  part  of  the  rater.   A  riveting
pattern  where  as  the  rater  consciously  disregarded   scores   of
accomplishments, both on and off duty.  A pattern of  willful  neglect
rooted in a personality conflict.

He states he was never provided counseling  nor  feedback,  formal  or
informal about perceived performance deficiencies.  The  rater  was  a
lieutenant colonel with ten  years  time-in-grade  and  almost  twenty
years his senior.  He was a second lieutenant less than one  year  out
of officer training  school  when  the  contested  performance  period
began.

He has  provided  substantial  evidence,  which  contradicts  negative
ratings and comments in the evaluation report.  He’s  not  seeking  to
have the OER rewritten to be hard hitting, contain  embellishments  or
enhance promotion potential.

His   senior   rater   (Major   General)   completed   his   Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) for the  CY96A  board  in  early  1996.   He
awarded him a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation for  the  CY96A
board based upon his supervisor’s recommendation, past performance and
future potential.   A  “DP”  recommendation  for  promotion  virtually
assured advancement.  The OER has had  a  detrimental  impact  on  his
career in the past and continues to have  an  impact  today.   He  was
advised and is convinced that the OER was a key  factor  in  his  non-
selection for ISS.

The advisory is conspicuously void of any references to several  other
issues brought forth in his appeal (the fate of his three predecessors
- all commissioned officers, relieved of duty and the  last  separated
from the Air Force due to the actions of the rater, the award  of  the
Air  Force  Achievement  Medal  (AFAM),  and  his  performance   based
potential.)

The recommendation for denial is built around two unrelated  issues  -
timeliness and merit.   Many  years  have  passed  between  the  OER’s
discovery in August 1987 and the submission of his  appeal,  but  much
happened in those years to delay the  appeal’s  momentum.   Everything
from  “poor  advice”  about  not  mounting  an  appeal  to  unexpected
contingencies and deployments.  Denial based on merit seems focused on
gross misinterpretation of the most compelling facts provided.

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  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the contested report  is
in error or unjust.  The statements provided are noted; however, these
individuals were not responsible for accessing applicant’s performance
during the period in question.  We have reviewed the comments  on  the
contested report and it appears the rating  officials  provided  their
honest assessment of applicant’s performance.  In view  of  the  above
findings, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our  conclusion  that
the applicant has not been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  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 11 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Edward C. Koenig, III, Member
                  Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 December 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 26 January 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 8 February 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 April 1999, w/atchs.





                                CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                Panel Chair