RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-03497
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs)  for  the  periods  22  Sep  89
through 21 Sep 90 and 22 Sep 90 through 21 Apr 91 be voided; and he be
considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special  Selection
Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPRs in question  should  be  voided  on  the  grounds  they  were
generated and processed in  a  untimely  manner  and  under  difficult
supervisory conditions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A and CY01B central selection boards.

The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB)  requesting  the  OPRs  be  voided  because   they   were   not
accomplished in  a  timely  manner,  and  also,  the  reports  do  not
accurately reflect  his  performance.   The  ERAB  denied  the  appeal
because a lack of timeliness does not invalidate a report or cause  it
to be inaccurate.

Applicant’s OPR profile is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                   22 Feb 86      1-1-1
                   22 Aug 86      1-1-1
                   22 Feb 87      1-1-1
                   22 Aug 87      1-1-1
                   22 Feb 88      1-1-1
                   21 Sep 89 Education/Tng Report
                   23 Feb 90 Education/Tng Report
                                 NEW SYSTEM
                  *21 Sep 90      Meets Standards
                  *21 Apr 91      Meets Standards
                   10 Dec 91      Meets Standards
                   10 Dec 92      Meets Standards
                   10 Dec 93      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 94      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 95      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 96      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 97      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 98      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 99      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 00      Meets Standards
                    9 Apr 01      Meets Standards

*Contested Reports.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB  to
void the contested reports.  The ERAB denied the request to  void  the
OPRs because untimeliness does not invalidate or cause a report to  be
inaccurate.   The  applicant  failed  to  provide  the  ERAB  a  clear
explanation of how the "difficult  supervisory  relationship"  between
the rater and  the  additional  rater  affected  the  content  of  his
reports.

The applicant contends the rater's  delay  in  accomplishing  the  OPR
resulted in a rushed product that was weak in content and  created  an
aberration in his personnel record  that  did  not  reflect  his  high
standard of accomplishments as in previous reports.   The  performance
report reflects performance for a specific  period.   The  evaluators,
along  with  the  applicant  inputs,  made  their  assessment  of  the
applicant for that timeframe.

The  additional  rater  states  the  rater  masked   the   applicant's
performance  and  he  was  unaware  of   the   applicant's   excellent
performance.  The additional rater requested that the rater meet  with
him to write the OPR.  The applicant  provided  the  additional  rater
with  inputs  for  use  in  accomplishing  the  report.   It  is   the
responsibility of each evaluator to compile the information needed  to
complete the report.  They are encouraged to seek information from  as
many sources as possible, to include the ratee.  The additional  rater
was aware of the  applicant's  performance  from  the  inputs  of  the
applicant and he could have incorporated those accomplishments in  the
report while he and the  rater  were  writing  the  report.   All  the
accomplishments of the ratee  may  not  be  annotated  in  the  report
because of limited space, therefore, it is up  to  the  evaluators  to
determined what accomplishment to include or leave off of the report.

DPPPE recommends denying the requested relief.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings of DPPPE and states  that  SSB
consideration is not warranted and they have nothing further  to  add.
Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  DPPPO  recommends   denying   the
applicant's request.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states the updated statement from the  additional  rater
clarifies  the  difficult   supervisory   relationship   between   the
additional rater and rater when his report was accomplished.

He has established the reports were  accomplished  concurrently,  well
after the reporting period of  the  first  evaluation.   His  evidence
shows the reports were completed 304 and 197 days  after  their  close
out date.

The additional rater did not  arrive  until  15  Nov  90  and  had  no
personal knowledge of the applicant's performance and had to  rely  on
the rater in assessing his duty performance.

He has submitted documentation to prove the rater  failed  to  perform
his supervisory duties and that the rater and additional rater  had  a
strained work relationship.

He has tried to contact the rater for his review of the facts  of  his
case.  The rater has failed to reply  to  his  request.   The  rater's
failure to respond to his request affirms his contentions.

He further states he was not  selected  for  promotion  by  the  CY01B
lieutenant colonel  selection  board.   The  board  results  were  not
available when the opinion was prepared.

He should receive the  requested  relief  because  as  it  stands  his
records do not reflect an accurate assessment of his performance.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, 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 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 the  contested  reports  are
not an accurate reflection of the applicant's duty performance  during
the time in question.  In the opinion of the Board, the failure of the
evaluators to complete the OPRs within the required timeframe put  the
applicant at an disadvantage before the promotion board.  In  view  of
the foregoing, we believe the applicant suffered an  injustice,  as  a
result of the delay in completing his OPRs, and the  applicant  should
be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by  the  CY00A
lieutenant colonel central selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Company  Grade
Officer Performance Reports, AF Forms 707B, rendered for  the  periods
22 Sep through 21 Sep 90 and 21 Sep 90 through 21 Apr 91, 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  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Years 2000 and 2001 Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
03497 in Executive Session on 11 April 2002, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Mr. David E. Hoard, Member
              Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

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

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Officer Selection Brief.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Jan 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Jan 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Feb 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant's Response, dated 7 Mar 02,
               w/atch.




                             PEGGY E. GORDON
                             Panel Chair







AFBCMR 01-03497



MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction for 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, SSN, be corrected to show that the
Company Grade Officer Performance Reports, AF Forms 707B, rendered for
the periods 22 September 1989 through 21 September 1990 and 22
September 1990 through 21 April 1991, be, and hereby are declared void
and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Years 2000 and 2001 Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards.




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency