RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00967
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

      XXXXXXXXXXXX     COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the  period  2
May 97 through 1 May 98 be replaced with a new OPR with corrected rater
and additional rater comments and with a  stratification  statement  to
correctly reflect his potential.

He be granted promotion consideration to lieutenant colonel by  special
selection board (SSB) for the CY99B  (30  Nov  99)  central  lieutenant
colonel selection board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It was pointed out to him by a reviewer  at  the  Air  Force  Personnel
Center during a non-selection record review that the OPR closing out  1
May 98 was a primary  cause  of  his  non-selection  for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel.  The main problem with the OPR is the last line  of
the  rater  and  additional  rater  blocks,  recommending  him  as   an
operations  officer.   The  intent  of  the  statement  was  a   direct
recommendation for his next job,  not  a  downgrade  from  the  “future
squadron commander” statement in his  previous  OPR.   The  lack  of  a
stratification statement in the OPR was also  noted  as  an  additional
negative factor.  The applicant states that  he  contacted  his  rating
chain on the 1 May 98 OPR to determine if it was their intent  to  send
the message that the OPR  sent  and  whether  they  would  support  his
efforts to correct the OPR.  He received  the  support  of  his  entire
rating chain to correct the OPR.  After  getting  the  support  of  his
rating chain, he sent the entire  package  to  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB).  The ERAB denied his request to correct  the  OPR,
acknowledging the error but indicating that he  should  have  requested
that the report be corrected before it became a matter  of  record  and
was reviewed by a central selection board (CSB).  The applicant  states
that the ruling of the ERAB conflicts with Air Force guidance.  He also
states that he was not aware of the errors in  his  OPR  until  he  was
advised by the reviewer at AFPC on 13 Apr 00.

The applicant also states that he  is  aware  of  other  officers  that
applied and received approval for OPR corrections after  their  records
had already met a CSB.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the  grade  of  major.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 16 Jun 86.  His last  ten
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) reflect overall  ratings  of  “Meets
Standards.”   The  applicant  was  considered  but  not  selected   for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY 99B (30 Nov 99) and CY00A (28
Nov 00) central lieutenant colonel selection boards.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPE,
evaluated this application and recommends that the applicant’s  request
be denied.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is  accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  Willingness by evaluators is not a
valid reason to change a report.  To effectively challenge an  OPR,  it
is necessary to prove there was an error or injustice.  A report is not
erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to  a
non-selection for promotion; the error must be based  on  its  content.
The job recommendations were appropriate  to  the  member’s  grade  and
current  position.   The  evaluators  state  the  recommendations  were
intentional and directed at the applicant’s gaining commander.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Officer  Program  Management  Section,  AFPC/DPPPO,   also
evaluated this application and recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s
request.  They accept the findings of the ERAB that  originally  denied
the  applicant’s  appeal  and  agree  with  the  evaluation   done   by
AFPC/DPPPE.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations in  an  eight-page
memorandum with 10 attachments.  The applicant states that he has  been
unable to get an archive copy of AFI 36-2402,  The  Officer  Evaluation
System, dated 1 Jul 96 and that the evaluation done by AFPC/DPPPE  does
not  provide  any  specific  guidance  to  support  its  opinion.   He,
therefore, cannot comment on the evaluation using information from  AFI
36-2402.  The applicant states  that  while  an  AFPC  reviewer  cannot
specifically state the cause of a member’s non-selection for promotion,
they do have  a  great  deal  of  experience  in  examining  Air  Force
personnel records and are able to make educated observations about  why
one record scored high enough to make the promotion cut while others do
not.  In his case, the reviewer did point out  that  the  inconsistency
between the “destined to be a squadron commander” in his 1 May  97  OPR
and the “Mature judgement and dedication dictates  operations  officer”
in  his  1  May  98  OPR  as  well  as  the  lack  of  an   appropriate
stratification raised flags to the board.  His current  wing  commander
also noted the same items.

The  applicant  discuses  how  the  comments  made  by  the  rater  and
additional rater on his OPR closing out 1 May 98 failed to convey their
intent and instead gave a negative  picture  to  the  promotion  board.
The applicant states that he has the support of  his  rating  chain  to
correct the 1 May 98 OPR.  The applicant notes that the primary  reason
the ERAB denied his appeal was that he did not seek to get  the  errors
corrected prior to  the  report  becoming  a  matter  of  record.   The
applicant points out that  this  conflicts  with  pertinent  Air  Force
guidance, which allow him to see his OPR only after it  has  become  an
official part of his record.   The  applicant  further  references  two
previous cases with situations similar to his favorably decided by  the
AFBCMR as support for his appeal.

The applicant points out that the evaluation  done  by  AFPC/DPPPO  has
some incorrect facts.  He has  only  two  nonselections  for  promotion
instead  of  three.   He  states  that  his   request   for   promotion
consideration by SSB is based on the AFBCMR approving his request.

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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing   the
statements of support provided by the applicant’s entire rating  chain,
the Board was persuaded that the requested changes should  be  made  to
the contested OPR.  The Board accepts the statements  from  his  rating
chain that the OPR failed to convey their  intended  message  regarding
the  applicant’s  potential.   Therefore,   we   recommend   that   the
applicant’s record be corrected as follows.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that   the   Officer
Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered for the period 2  May
1997 through 1 May 1998 be amended as follows:

        a.  Delete line nine in Section VI, “Rater Overall Assessment”,
and replace  it  with  “#1  ISR  action  officer  in  USAFE.   Make  an
Operations Officer now!  Ready for command and SSS!”

        b.  Delete line five in Section VII, “Additional Rater  Overall
Assessment”,  and  replace  with  “Superstar!    My   #1   ISR   action
officer…ready for ops officer; then command…joint duty and SSS a must!”

It is further recommended that he be considered for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB)  beginning
with the CY99B Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  and  any
subsequent boards in which the above referenced corrected OPR was not a
matter of record.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 July 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
      Ms. Martha Maust, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 May 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 May 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 01,
                 w/atchs.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-00967




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that the
Officer Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered for the
period 2 May 1997 through 1 May 1998 be amended as follows:

            a.  Delete line nine in Section VI, “Rater Overall
Assessment”, and replace it with “#1 ISR action officer in USAFE.  Make
an Operations Officer now!  Ready for command and SSS!”

            b.  Delete line five in Section VII, “Additional Rater
Overall Assessment”, and replace with “Superstar!  My #1 ISR action
officer…ready for ops officer; then command…joint duty and SSS a must!”

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) beginning
with the CY99B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any
subsequent boards in which the above referenced corrected OPR was not a
matter of record.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency