RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02490
            INDEX CODE:  111.05, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    The  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  rendered  for  the  period
14 July 1989 to 22 June 1990, 23  June  1990  to  31  January  1991,  and  1
February 1991 to 31 January 1992, be declared void.

2.    His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the period 31  May
1996 to 30 May 1997,  31  May  1997  to  30  May  1998,  and  the  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared  for  the  Calendar  Year  1998B  (CY98B)
lieutenant colonel selection board be corrected to reflect his correct  duty
title and that he receive Special Selection Board  (SSB)  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the  CY98B,  CY99A,  CY99B,
and CY00A Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPRs closing out on 22 June 1990, 31 January 1991, and  31 January  1992
were not written in accordance with AFR 36-10,  Officer  Evaluation  System,
dated 1 August 1988.  He states that Chapter 3,  paragraph  entitled  “Rater
Overall Assessment” states, “This section provides space for  the  rater  to
comment on additional accomplishments related to the  unit  mission,  assess
potential based on performance, and make any other  comments,  explanations,
or recommendations.   Chapter  3,  paragraph  entitled  “Section  VI,  Rater
Overall Assessment, and VII, Additional Rater  Overall  Assessment”  states,
“The overall performance and performance based potential remarks  are  based
on the performance of the ratee compared  to  other  officers  in  the  same
grade known by the evaluators…”   The  three  OPRs  he’s  requesting  to  be
removed do not have rater comments assessing  his  potential  based  on  his
performance in Section VI.





The duty title  for  his  joint  position  at  the  Cruise  Missile  Support
Activity (CMSA) was not very  descriptive  and  didn’t  show  a  breadth  of
responsibility.  However, this was the  duty  title  given  to  him  by  the
rater, a Navy 06, and was reflective of the kind  of  duty  title  he  would
have given any other naval officer who was a “Department  Head”  in  a  Navy
organization.  After his  non-selection  by  the  CY98B  lieutenant  colonel
board, with the duty title “Mission Support Officer” on the PRF and top  two
OPRs his new rater (former rater retired) agreed to change  his  duty  title
for his next OPR.  The duty title change was also retroactive to the day  he
arrived at the CMSA.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  the
contested OPRs closing 22 June 1990, 31 January 1991, 31  January  1992,  30
May 1997, 30 May 1998; contested PRF, Officer Selection Brief  (OSB),  dated
1 August 2001, and other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY98B (1 June 1998), CY99A (19 April 1999),  CY99B
(30 November 1999), and the  CY00A  (28 November  2000)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Boards.

The applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the  CY01A  reflected  the
duty title of Chief, Cruise Missile Support from 1996 through 1998.

OPR profile since 1995 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                *  22 Jun 90              Meets Standards (MS)
                *  31 Jan 91                 (MS)
                *  31 Jan 92                 (MS)
                 31 Jan 93                   (MS)
                 31 Jan 94                   (MS)
                 31 Jan 95                   (MS)
                 31 Jan 96                   (MS)
                 30 May 96                   (MS)
               *#  30 May 97                 (MS)





                *  30 May 98                 (MS)
               ##  19 Jan 99                 (MS)
              ###   1 Jul 99                 (MS)
             ####  30 Apr 00                 (MS)
                 30 Apr 01                   (MS)

* Contested Reports
# Top Reports:  #CY98, ##CY99A, ###CY99B, ####CY00A

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicate that the Air  Force  policy
is that an evaluation report is  accurate  as  written  when  it  becomes  a
matter of  record.   A  report  is  not  erroneous  or  unfair  because  the
applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for  promotion  or  may
impact future promotion or career  opportunities.   The  applicant  contends
that when he was assigned his position in the joint  command,  he  discussed
his duty with his commander/rater, who after listening  to  the  applicant’s
concerns, chose to leave the duty title “Mission Support Officer.”  When  he
retired and the applicant was assigned a new supervisor, the new  supervisor
not only changed the duty title, but also,  according  to  the  application,
backdated the effective date.  As the applicant’s rater, he was  within  his
purview to give the applicant the duty title he determined was  appropriate.
 The new rater may change it; however, the earliest effective date that  can
be used is the date supervision became effective.  Therefore, the  erroneous
information is not the duty titles on the OPRs and PRF, but the  duty  title
on the officer pre-selection brief.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommended denial.  They concur with the findings in the  HQ
AFPC/DPPPE advisory, and those in the  memorandum  from  HQ  AFPC/DPAS  that
indicate changing the duty title was certainly within the  new  supervisor’s
prerogative, the retroactive application  of  this  change  is  suspect  and
should not have been approved.  The officer notes  he  discussed  this  very
issue with his previous supervisor in June 1996,  a  full  year  before  the
first report closed out.  His supervisor decided against changing  the  duty
title.   Apparently  determining  the  current  title  adequately  reflected
applicant’s role in his organization and  the  standards  he  would  use  to
evaluate applicant’s performance.  Despite his retired  status,  his  former
supervisor’s  input  is  a   notable   omission   from   this   application.
AFPC/DPPPEP further states that they have nothing  further  to  add.   Since
those advisories recommend denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 October 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting the  OPRs  rendered  for
the period 14 July 1989 to 22 June 1990, 23 June 1990 to  31  January  1991,
and 1 February 1991 to 31 January 1992, be declared void.   After  reviewing
the evidence submitted with this appeal,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
contested reports are either in error or  unjust.   The  applicant  contends
that his raters did not comment on his performance based potential and  this
is in violation of AFR 36-10, -  (Officer  Evaluation  System)  Section  VI,
Rater Overall Assessment.  The section  provides  space  for  the  rater  to
comment on  additional  accomplishments  related  to  unit  mission,  assess
potential based on performance, and make other comments,  explanations,  and
recommendations.  The applicant has not provided evidence  that  the  raters
were unaware of this  guidance.   Rather,  it  appears  they  chose  not  to
include any comments about the applicant’s potential on the contested  OPRs.
 Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we are not convinced  that  the
rating  officials  did  not  render  accurate  assessments  of   applicant’s
performance at the time each report was prepared.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice  with  regard  to  the  applicant’s
contentions that his duty title on his 30 May 1997 and 30 May 1998 OPRs  and
his PRF prepared  for  the  1998B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  be
changed because the rater was in another branch of service and not  familiar
with Air Force terminology.   The  applicant’s  former  commander  chose  to
leave the duty title “Mission Support  Officer”  because  it  reflected  the
applicant’s role in his organization and the standards the  commander  would
use  to  evaluate  the  applicant’s  performance.    The   applicant’s   new
supervisor changed the title to Chief, Cruise Missile Support,  as  was  his
prerogative, and backdated the effective date.  While,  the  new  rater  may
change the duty title, the earliest effective date that can be used  is  the
date he became the applicant’s supervisor.  We note that the  applicant  has
not submitted any supporting documentation from the  rating  chain  and  has
failed to provide evidence showing that the  duty  title  was  not  accurate
during the contested time period.  In view of the above findings,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

5.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will  materially
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 19 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
                  Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 August 2001, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 October 2001.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 October 2001, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 October 2001.




                                TERRY A. YONKERS
                                Panel Chair