RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01243
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His officer performance report  (OPR)  rendered  for  the  period  1 Jul  96
through 30 Jun 97, be removed from his records  and  he  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) for the Calendar Year 98B (CY98B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR contains an overall assessment, which outlines a  major  just  doing
his day-to-day job, that was unjustifiably inferior based on the  duties  he
performed during the rating period.  The assessment is clearly  inconsistent
with assessments before and after the rating period.   In  reality,  he  was
serving in a position historically reserved for lieutenant colonels with  24
months of joint experience.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of  the  contested  OPR
and the OPRs he received prior to and after  the  contested  OPR,  character
reference letters, his Inspector General (IG) letter, a  printout  from  the
AFPC  Joint  Officer  Management  Homepage,  a  draft  OPR,  and,  documents
associated with his Evaluation Reports  Appeals  Board  (ERAB)  application.
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reveals that on   15  May  82,
applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the  Air  Force  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active  duty  on  10  Jan  83.   He  was
integrated into the Regular Air Force on 19 Mar  86  and  was  progressively
promoted to the grade of major having assumed that grade effective and  with
a date of rank of   1 Sep 94.   He  was  considered  and  not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  the  CY98B,  CY99A,  CY99B,
and  CY00A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Boards.   He  currently  has   a
projected date of separation of 31 Jan 07.

Applicant’s OPR profile  since  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  is  as
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

                 30 Jun 95   MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
                 30 Jun 96              MS
                 30 Jun 97*             MS
                 30 Jun 98              MS
                 18 Dec 98        TRAINING REPORT
                 17 Jun 99              MS
                 14 Jun 00              MS

* - Contested Report.

A similar  appeal  by  the  applicant  was  considered  and  denied  by  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPPEP,
reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPPPEP states  that  to
effectively challenge an OPR it is necessary to hear from  all  the  members
of   the   rating   chain,   not   only   for   support,   but   also    for
clarification/explanation.   The  applicant  has  failed  to   provide   any
information/support from his rating chain.  He filed an  IG  complaint  that
was found  to  be  unsubstantiated.   OPRs  written  before  and  after  the
contested OPR clearly depict a superior officer.  It is  not  reasonable  to
compare one report covering a certain period of  time  with  another  report
covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for  a  change  of
performance and does not follow the intent of the governing instruction.

Any  report  can  be  rewritten   to   be   harder   hitting,   to   provide
embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s promotion  potential.   However,  the
time to do that is before the report becomes a  matter  of  record.   It  is
DPPPEP’s opinion that, since the  applicant  has  not  provided  substantial
evidence to the contrary, the report is accurate  as  written  (see  Exhibit
C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  that  the
procedure of forwarding the OPR to the base personnel office (for review  to
assure compliance with prescribed format and completeness of  data  entries)
before being reviewed by the ratee,
prevented the discovery of administrative oversights and  an  error  in  his
records, the inaccurate 30 Jun 97 OPR and the absence of his 30 Jun 98  OPR.
 The time of discovery of the injustice was after the OPR  became  a  matter
of record, which did not allow for correction prior to his promotion  board.
 Promotion board members indicated that the inaccurate OPR and  the  absence
of his 30 Jun 98 OPR  were  determining  factors  in  his  nonselection  for
promotion.

Attempts to remedy the administrative oversights  in  his  promotion  folder
provided  substantial  evidence  that  evaluations  by  officers  in   other
branches  of  the  armed  forces  were  inaccurate  because  of  a  lack  of
understanding of Air Force evaluations and created a  change  in  procedures
at the Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center (JTASC).   AFI  36-2402
substantially revised AFR 36-10 by making provisions that ensure first  time
supervisors were properly trained.  When the designated reviewer is  not  an
Air Force officer, an Air Force evaluator is designated to advise  reviewers
on matters pertaining to Air  Force  OPRs.   It  was  not  until  after  his
inaccurate OPR became a matter of record that the OPR training  program  for
sister services was reviewed at JTASC.

His performance during the time period of the contested OPR was superior  to
that of the OPRs that preceded  and  followed  the  contested  report.   The
overall assessment  was  unjustifiably  inferior  based  on  the  duties  he
performed.  He was a major serving as  the  Unified  Endeavor  98-1  Project
Officer, which was historically reserved for  lieutenant  colonels  with  24
months of joint experience.  He received a Joint Service  Achievement  Medal
(JSAM) for service during the period and  was  selected  for  the  extremely
competitive billet at the Armed  Forced  Staff  College.   Applicant  quoted
comments from his JSAM citation and quoted some of  the  laudatory  comments
regarding his performance while attending the Armed Forces Staff College.

In further support of his request applicant provided a copy of his JSAM;  AF
Form 475, Education Training Report covering the period 28  Sep  98  through
18 Dec 98; and, additional copies  of  documents  he  previously  submitted.
His complete submission is 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are persuaded that favorable  consideration  of  the  applicant’s
request is warranted.  In this respect, given the unequivocal  support  from
senior Air Force and  Army  officers  who  were  in  positions  to  directly
observe his performance, and having no basis to  question  their  integrity,
we believe a reasonable doubt has been established as to whether or not  the
Officer Performance Report (OPR)  closing  30  June  1997,  is  a  true  and
accurate assessment of his performance.  We note as  well  that  the  senior
Air Force representative attempted to replace the  OPR  prior  to  the  June
1998 selection board with an OPR that was  indicative  of  his  capabilities
and more congruent with Air Force standards.   Additionally,  based  on  the
evidence provided we believe that a personality conflict  may  have  existed
between the applicant and his rater that hindered that individual’s  ability
to objectively assess the applicant’s performance.  In consideration of  all
of the circumstances of this case it is our opinion that the benefit of  any
doubt in this matter should be  resolved  in  his  favor.   Accordingly,  we
recommend that his records be corrected to the extent 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 (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 1 July 1996  through  30
June 1997, be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar
Year  1998B  (CY98B)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  and  for   any
subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 30 June 1997  was  a  matter  of
record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 21 Aug 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
      Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 Jun 01, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jul 01, w/atchs.




                             JOHN L ROBUCK
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-01234




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer
Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 1 July 1996
through 30 June 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any
subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 30 June 1997 was a matter of
record.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency