RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01061
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period  28
Oct 98 through 27 Oct 99 be replaced with a corrected report.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In May 97, she reported for a level-three acquisition job that she  had
volunteered for and had willingly signed  paperwork  for  a  three-year
controlled tour.   In  Oct  97,  she  was  selected  as  Chief  of  the
Commander’s Action Group (CAG) by the Logistics Center Commander.   She
had not volunteered for or sought this position, but  had  been  chosen
from a list of eligibles and then informed of her  selection.   At  the
time her  selection  was  announced,  she  pointed  out  that  she  had
willingly signed the three-year acquisition commitment that locked  her
into the position.  She was advised that the needs  of  the  Air  Force
would come first and that her acquisition commitment could  be  waived.
She also expressed concern that she had recently left a staff  position
at HQ AFMC and would now be returning to  staff  work.   The  commander
promised to put her back into an acquisition position and program after
her return from a Defense Systems Management College  Advanced  Program
Management Class (DSMC APMC).

The next series of events spawned the multiple  problems  that  plagued
her duty history from Oct 97 to Dec 00.  There was no military position
in the CAG to assign her to, so for her first year,  she  was  assigned
against the military slot that she was assigned to in Training Systems.
 In 1998, a permanent position was acquired for the CAG  chief.   Prior
to this, however, she had not been able to get a waiver  because  there
was no actual position to place her against.  When  the  paperwork  for
the waiver was finally submitted, she was attending class at DSMC APMC.
 As a result multiple and repeated errors occurred in her duty history.
 Prior to her departure for class at DSMC, her commander had  told  her
that he intended to  place  her  in  charge  of  the  Training  Systems
Management Division.  This was based on the planned  departure  of  the
incumbent which, did not happen.  Since the position she was  expecting
was no longer available, she was eventually  placed  in  the  Inspector
General (IG) position.  Although she moved to a different position,  an
OPR was not required until four months later because she did not change
raters.  When she reviewed  a  copy  of  her  normal  annual  OPR,  she
discovered  that  it  had  an  incorrect  duty  title,  incorrect  duty
description, and lacked any of her accomplishments as IG.  Although she
felt  that  the  OPR  should  have  reflected  all   her   duties   and
accomplishments, she did not try to get it changed to avoid  negatively
affecting  her  relationship  with  her  rater.   When  her   promotion
recommendation form was accomplished in Jun 00, there was not an OPR in
her file with any relevant information about her accomplishments as the
IG.  She believes that this may have  sent  an  unintended  detrimental
message to the promotion board about her performance.

Her rater at the time supports her request to correct the OPR.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant  is  presently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date  is
24 Sep 79.  A profile of her last ten OPRs follows:

        Closeout Date                   Overall Rating

          27 Oct 00                     Meets Standards
         *27 Oct 99                     Meets Standards
          27 Oct 98                     Meets Standards
          27 Oct 97                     Meets Standards
          09 May 97                     Meets Standards
          15 Dec 96                     Meets Standards
          15 Dec 95                     Meets Standards
          15 Dec 94                     Meets Standards
          03 Dec 93                     Meets Standards
          22 Feb 93                     Meets Standards

She was considered and not selected for promotion to colonel  (O-6)  by
the CY00A (17 Jul 00) central colonel selection board.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and  Recognition  Division  evaluated
this application and recommends denial of replacement of the  contested
OPR with a corrected report, but does recommend  that  the  applicant’s
duty title be changed to “Inspector General.”

The memorandum the applicant included from her rater confirms that  she
had been assigned as IG since 6 Jul 99, but the  CAG  title  was  used.
The applicant’s rater had the option of including her duties as  IG  on
the original OPR, but chose not to do so.  Any report can be  rewritten
to be harder hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s
promotion potential.  The time to  do  this,  however,  is  before  the
report becomes a matter of record.   The  applicant’s  rater  does  not
explain how  he  was  hindered  from  rendering  a  fair  and  accurate
assessment of the applicant’s performance prior  to  the  report  being
made a matter of record.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotions, Appointments, &  Selective  Continuation
Branch also  evaluated  this  application.   They  recommend  that  the
applicant not be provided promotion consideration by special  selection
board (SSB).

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports,  which  the
ERAB denied.  They accept the findings of the ERAB.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations.  She states  that
AFPC/DPPP neglected to address the discrepancy highlighted by  the  two
OPRs provided in the appeal package.  They did not explain how both she
and another officer could have OPRs stating  that  both  of  them  were
Chief of the Commander’s  Action  Group.   If  the  OPR  is  considered
“accurate as written unless substantial evidence  to  the  contrary  is
provided, the two OPRs documented in her  request  for  correction  are
evidence that one or both OPRs are incorrect.”

If only the duty title is corrected, as recommended by  AFPC/DPPP,  any
reader of her OPR would question why  she  held  a  job  for  which  no
accomplishments were documented.  The applicant points out  that  there
is no exhaustive review of an OPR written by a two-star commander at an
Air Logistics Center.  This results in a greater  likelihood  that  any
errors will be missed.

The applicant also takes issue with the  position  taken  by  AFPC/DPPP
that she should have appealed her OPR before  it  became  a  matter  of
record.  She states that to do so would be highly  irregular  and  that
based on the time period  allowed  by  the  Air  Force  Instruction  to
request corrections, there is no need to do so.

The applicant rebuts other points contained in the AFPC/DPPP Evaluation
and concludes that the  facts  covering  her  IG  accomplishments  were
submitted, and the rater is now convinced that he did not issue a  fair
and accurate report by excluding them.

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.   The  Board  was  primarily
persuaded by the support that the applicant received  from  her  rating
chain.  The Board notes that while every effort should be made  by  the
rater to prepare a correct report before it becomes a matter of record,
ratees do not normally have access to  a  report  until  after  it  has
become a matter of record.   The  Board  believes  that  the  applicant
pointed out valid problems with her OPR and finds no basis to  question
the integrity of her rating chain’s decision to support her request  to
correct the  report.   Therefore,  we  recommend  that  the  record  be
corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Field  Grade
Officer Performance Report, Air  Force  Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 28 October 1998 through 27 October  1999  with  the  duty  title
“Chief, Commander’s Action Group” be declared void and removed from her
records and replaced with the  attached  corrected  OPR  for  the  same
period with the duty title “Inspector General.”

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by Special Selection Board beginning  with  the  CY00A
Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards in which  the
above referenced OPR was 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 13 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 Apr 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 May 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 27 Jun 01.




                                   PATRICK R. WHEELER
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-01061




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 XXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that the
Field Grade Officer Performance Report, Air Force Form 707A, rendered
for the period 28 October 1998 through 27 October 1999, with a duty
title of “Chief, Commander’s Action Group”, be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from her records and replaced with the attached
corrected OPR for the same period with the duty title of “Inspector
General.”

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to
the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board beginning with the
CY00A Central 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

Attachment
Corrected OPR