RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00962
            INDEX NUMBER:  131; 111.01

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered on him for  the  period
22 Jun 97 through 30 Apr 98 and 1 May 98 through 1 Nov  98  be  removed
from his records.

He  be  directly  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  or
considered for promotion by special selection board (SSB).

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His rater for the OPR closing out 30 Apr 98  did  not  have  sufficient
days of supervision to render a report on him and the Additional  Rater
should have been his Rater.

He never received required feedback from his rater for the    30 Apr 98
report.

He accepted a job on 1 Apr 98 in PACAF DOX under the  strict  condition
that Colonel _________ would be his primary rater.  This did not happen
as indicated on his report closing out     1 Nov 98 where he is instead
the Additional Rater.

He underwent  multiple  changes  of  reporting  officials  without  his
knowledge and  never  received  performance  feedback  for  the  period
covered in his 1 Nov 98 report.

The closeout dates and signatures of the rater  and  additional  raters
for the 1 Nov 98 OPR were backdated and forged.  The applicant presents
a copy of a tracking sheet as evidence of this.

His 1 Nov 98 OPR was not included with his records that met his  MAJCOM
Management  Level  Review  Board  and  placed  him  at  a   significant
disadvantage and impacted  on  his  promotion  or  career  opportunity.
Also, this report was late to file based on  the  requirements  in  AFI
2402.

He was the only one in his section that his Additional Rater for his  1
Nov 98 OPR did  not  directly  rate.   Since  he  was  hired  with  the
stipulation that he would be directly rated by the  individual  serving
as his Additional Rater, this constitutes an injustice.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFMSD)  is  4
Apr 84.  A review of his last ten OPRs,  including  the  two  contested
OPRs, reflects overall ratings of  “Meets  Standards.”   He  has  three
nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A  (19  Apr
99), CY99B (30 Nov  99),  and  CY00A  (8  Nov  00)  lieutenant  colonel
selection boards.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
evaluated this application and recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.

The applicant contends that his designated raters  did  not  write  the
OPRs closing 30 Apr 98 and  1  Nov  98.   Inaccurate  designations  and
failures  to  change  raters  can  occur  when  personnel  retire,  are
reassigned…, etc.  To prove the  wrong  rater  wrote  the  report,  the
applicant must obtain statements from all of the individuals who signed
the report and from  the  individuals  who  believe  they  should  have
written the report.  Those memorandums should  include  the  “from  and
thru” dates of  their  supervision  and  explain  what  happened.   The
“erroneous” evaluators must clearly explain why they wrote and signed a
report when they were not the rater.  Likewise the “correct”  evaluator
must explain why he or she did not write the report  even  though  they
were supposed to.  Also helpful is a letter  from  the  unit  commander
(the one in place on the closeout date of  the  contested  OPR),  since
Unit commanders establish rating chains within their organizations.

On the OPR closing 30 Apr 98, the applicant requests that this  OPR  be
voided because the wrong rater, who did not have  adequate  supervision
or provide performance feedback wrote it.  The applicant includes email
from his MAJCOM DP who explains, “The rules do not allow the additional
rater to write the OPR in lieu of the rater unless the rater had  died,
was missing in action, …”  The DP points out that while the “130  days”
TDY were not deducted from the total days supervision on the  contested
OPR, there were still 151 days of supervision.

On the OPR closing 1 Nov 98, the applicant believes  the  wrong  person
wrote this report, the evaluators forged the signature dates,  and  the
report was late to  file.   The  applicant  did  not  provide  evidence
proving the wrong person wrote the OPR or that the signature dates were
forged.  They agree that the report was late to file, but that does not
make it invalid.

The applicant provided evidence substantiating that the OPR  closing  1
Nov 98 was missing from his record of performance when his  MAJCOM  MLR
convened.  Since he failed to prove the OPR is  illegal,  it  would  be
appropriate for the applicant to request reconsideration by  the  PACAF
MLR with inclusion of the missing report under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 1 Dec 97.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotions, Appointments, and Selective Continuation
Branch also evaluated this application.  They recommend denial  of  the
applicant’s requests.

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  which  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied.   The  ERAB  was  not
convinced the reports should be  voided,  and  the  applicant  did  not
provide proper documentation to support his appeal.

In  regards  to  the  applicant’s  request  for  direct  promotion   or
consideration by SSB, direct promotion has only been considered in  the
most extraordinary  circumstances  where  SSB  consideration  has  been
deemed to be totally unworkable.  The applicant’s case clearly does not
fall into that category.  His case  clearly  does  not  warrant  direct
promotion or consideration by SSB.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluations.  The applicant states  that
both  evaluations  emphasize  insufficient  evidence,   but   fail   to
acknowledge all the  proof  he  has  submitted  throughout  the  entire
process.  As for the MAJCOM MLR, he states that as he  understands  it,
that process is used if you have questions concerning your PRF not your
OPR.

Concerning the designated rater issue, he states that  it  was  more  a
function of what he was told  both  via  e-mails  and  in  person  when
accepting these positions.  In response to the AFPC/DPPP evaluation, he
states that it is impossible to recreate proof of the multiple  changes
of reporting officials.

On his OPR closing  out  30  Apr  98,  he  again  emphasizes  that  the
individual writing the report as rater was never his rater and that the
MAJCOM DP “fails miserably  in  his  efforts  to  answer  the  question
concerning his rater.”

The applicant also addresses issues related to his OPR  closing  out  1
Nov 98.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

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 and adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim
of an error or injustice.  The Board was not persuaded by the  evidence
presented by the  applicant  that  the  contested  OPRs  are  improper.
Notwithstanding the applicant’s  contentions  regarding  his  immediate
raters, it appears that this is a case of preference as  opposed  to  a
requirement mandated by Air Force Instructions.  The Board  notes  that
he did not provide any conclusive evidence such as an inspector general
(IG) report or equal opportunity and treatment investigation to support
his allegations of  bias  and  unfair  treatment.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief  sought  in  this  application.   We  do,
however, support the recommendation of  AFPC/DPPP  that  the  applicant
request through appropriate channels reconsideration by the  PACAF  MLR
with inclusion of the missing 1 Nov 98 OPR.

_______________________________________________________________

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 16 August 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 18 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 May 01
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 8 Jul 01.




                                   JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
                                   Panel Chair