RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03176
            INDEX CODE:  111.01; 131.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) covering the period 18 March  1992
through 21 January 1997, be corrected and he be considered for  promotion
to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the  CY97B
Colonel Selection Board (PO697B), which convened on 8 December 1997.

[There were 6 OPRs rendered during this period:  18  March  1992  through
17 March 1993; 18 March 1993 through 17 March 1994; 18 March 1994 through
17 March 1995; 18 March 1995 through 2 August 1995; 3 August 1995 through
2 August 1996; and 3 August 1996 through 21 January 1997.]

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During a May 2000 review of his record with an O-6 advisor comments  were
made about his record:  (1) His OPRs were vague  and  misleading  due  to
security restrictions; (2) the  advisor  knew  of  a  special  classified
selection board which convened at the Pentagon; and (3) this venue allows
classified military careers to be fairly represented.

Every position since 1977 has been compartmented  and  important  details
concerning how the position enhanced the  Air  Force  mission,  fulfilled
current/future goals and the impact on warfighting capability are missing
from his official record.  Every OPR was by  line  scrubbed  by  security
staffs.  If the combination  of  unclassified  data  in  the  entire  OPR
inferred classified facts then a further generic re-write occurred.

Positions from 1984 to 1993 were also “data masked” in both  organization
and location.  Details, impacts, levels of responsibility are all missing
from OPRs.  Even job titles are aliases and are not a true reflection  of
position.   This  is  not  due  to  commanders’  desire,   but   security
constraints/requirements.

Positions from 1993 to the present still limit descriptions in the OPR of
actual work performed, even though the black organization he was  working
for during the  time,  the  National  Reconnaissance  Office  (NRO),  was
declassifying  many  functions  as  it  transitioned  somewhat  into  the
unclassified world.   Many  mission  accomplishments  still  remain  very
classified and are not mentioned or inferred.

During  his  career,  classification  guidance  prevented  the   accurate
evaluation of his impact on unit mission, assigned responsibilities,  and
specific accomplishments resulting in  OPRs,  which  did  not  accurately
communicate what he did, how well he performed,  and,  most  importantly,
his potential based on demonstrated job performance.  He believes he  was
at a competitive disadvantage for the promotion board when  competing  in
aggregation for a “DP” and during the scoring by promotion board  members
resulting in a non-selection for promotion.

Only a classified review of his records by an SSB will honestly represent
his career and promotability.  His career track has been more  classified
than most, but he has achieved the depth and breadth  of  experience  and
responsibility   necessary   for   senior   USAF   positions.    However,
unclassified descriptions in documents such as OPRs and  award  citations
are vague and misleading.  It was unjust to compare his records  for  the
purpose of promotion with those of others who were in less sensitive jobs
as a meaningful comparison cannot  be  made.   If  a  special  classified
promotion board is granted,  then  specific  classified  details  of  his
duties, responsibilities and mission impact may be fairly  presented  for
an accurate assessment of his value to the USAF.

In support, the applicant submits a number of supporting  statements  and
additional documents associated with the issues cited in his  contentions
(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
lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade on  1  June  1992.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)  is  27  January
1976.  He has a projected date of separation (DOS) of 31 January 2004.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

            *  17 Mar 93     Meets Standards (MS)
            *  17 Mar 94          MS
            *  18 Feb 94          MS
            *  17 Mar 95          MS
            *  02 Aug 95          MS
            *  02 Aug 96          MS
            *# 21 Jan 97          MS
            Period Ending    Evaluation

               21 Jan 98          MS
               31 Oct 98          MS
               04 May 99          MS
               04 May 00          MS

  * - Contested OPRs

  # - Top report in file when considered and not selected for
      promotion IPZ by the CY97B Colonel Selection Board, which
      convened on 8 December 1997.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the  grade
of colonel by the CY98C (1 December 1998),  CY99A  (2 August  1999),  and
CY00A (17 July 2000) Colonel Selection Boards.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Chief, Performance Evaluation Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and stated that they would normally recommend the application
be denied as untimely, but that they are aware that the AFBCMR may decide
the application on the merits.  The applicant requests correction of  the
OPRs and SSB consideration, but he has provided no new information in the
form of corrected reports for the SSB  to  consider.   The  rating  chain
provided letters of support indicating they regret being  prevented  from
including information regarding classified duties.  However, they do  not
indicate that the OPRs need correction due to  error.   DPPPE  found  the
OPRs valid as written and recommended denial (see Exibit C).

The Chief of  Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  HQ  AFPC/DPPB,
recommended  denial.   AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted   Evaluation
Systems, states “do not enter classified information on  any  section  of
the form” and prohibits discussion of classified information on  AF  Form
709 (Promotion Recommendation Form).  AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and
Selective Continuation, lists the information  which  meets  a  selection
board:  officer selection record, officer selection brief, letters to the
board, and addition information the Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  deems
substantiated and relevant to board deliberations.  The information  that
meets a  promotion  board  is  unclassified.   There  are  no  provisions
authorizing classified information to meet the board and no provision  to
hold a classified promotion board.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Officer Promotion, Appointments,  and  Selection  Continuation
Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPPO,  recommended  denial.   However,  if  the  AFBCMR
determines relief is warranted  and  grants  correction  to  any  of  the
contested OPRs, promotion reconsideration by the CY97B, CY98C, CY99A, and
CY00A colonel selection boards would be appropriate.  DPPPO accepted  the
findings of DPPB and DPPPE.  DPPPO  accepted  the  applicant’s  assertion
that sensitive data was removed from his reports.  For his  rating  chain
to do otherwise would  have  been  in  direct  violation  of  AFR  36-10,
paragraph 8-3, and AFI 36-2402, paragraph  7.2,  which  state,  “Reports,
attachments to reports, referral letters,  or  indorsements  to  referral
letters will not contain  classified  information.   If  an  entry  would
result  in  the  release  of  classified  information,   use   the   word
‘Classified’ in place of that entry.”

AFPC/DPPPO found it interesting  that  the  same  “scrubbed”  performance
reports contained the necessary, hard-hitting and  enthusiastic  language
to  facilitate  the  applicant’s  promotion  through  the  ranks  up   to
lieutenant colonel.   A  closer  review  of  the  applicant’s  record  of
performance revealed some inconsistencies and a drop  in  the  levels  of
support throughout.  These inconsistencies,  not  the  lack  of  specific
details concerning the applicant’s classified  duties,  would  have  been
greater factors in determining the potential for  promotion  to  colonel.
They also offered the Audit Report from the Office of the  Department  of
Defense  Inspector  General  (DoD  IG)  as  further  evidence  that   the
applicant’s  contention  that   the   “scrubbed”   reports   caused   his
nonselection is unsubstantiated.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant stated that there are significant differences in  what  the
DoD IG Audit Report generically  describes  as  Special  Access  Programs
(SAP) and the billets he filled in his career.  He was  assigned  to  one
designated USAF SAP position during his  career  and  believes  the  OPRs
received during that assignment provided a full and accurate  account  of
his duties and functions.  Other highly classified billet assignments  he
filled were managed  very  differently  by  the  National  Reconnaissance
Office (NRO) and the OPRs he received during these  assignments  did  not
provide a full and accurate  account  of  the  duties  and  functions  he
performed due to their highly classified nature.  All of his  assignments
from promotion to O-5 through his in the promotion zone board to O-6 were
in NRO billets.  During  his  tenure,  the  NRO  did  not  exist  in  the
unclassified world and was  significantly  different  in  management  and
personnel policy than designated USAF SAP programs.  He  takes  exception
with the applicability of the IG Audit Report on SAP assignments  to  his
specific NRO assignments.  He closes his rebuttal by requesting that  the
Board review his record and classified evidence of actual accomplishments
to determine whether any personal disadvantage occurred during the  CY98C
board.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law  or
regulations.

2.  The requests for correction of the Officer  Performance  Reports  was
not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the
failure to timely file.  The request for reconsideration for promotion by
the CY 1997B selection board was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the
unclassified and classified evidence of record and noting the applicant’s
contentions, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error
or an injustice.  We also do not concur with the  applicant’s  contention
that his OPRs  were  vague  and  misleading  due  to  stringent  security
restrictions.  While  the  evaluations  are  complimentary,  neither  the
actions nor the superlatives are particularly noteworthy, and the use  of
higher order descriptions and specific mention of demonstrated management
and  leadership  capabilities   were   certainly   not   constrained   by
classification.  Further, it is our opinion that  the  letters  from  his
evaluators are not substantially different from his existing records  and
do not speak to increased leadership,  management  or  future  potential,
rather they reiterate only that he “did an  excellent  job.”   Given  the
circumstances here, the fact that  the  applicant  worked  on  classified
programs does not create  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.   We  are
unwilling to conclude  that  officers  working  on  classified  programs,
either individually or as a group, are inherently  disadvantaged  in  the
promotion process.  We do not doubt that the applicant is a very talented
individual, but his arguments and submitted  evidence  do  not  make  the
connection that his classified duties  during  the  periods  in  question
caused an error or an injustice warranting corrective action.  Therefore,
we have no basis to favorably consider the  requests  for  correction  of
performance reports and reconsideration for promotion by an SSB.

4.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give  the
Board a clear  understanding  of  the  issues  involved  and  a  personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially  added  to
that  understanding.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a  hearing  is  not
favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  00-03176
application in Executive Session on 24 October 2001, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:


                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
                 Mr. J. Barry Hennessey, Member
                 Mr. John J. Nethery, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Jan 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 6 Feb 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Feb 2001, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Feb 2001.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 1 Mar 2001.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair