RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00180
            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 126.03,
                              131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), with closeout dates of 1 May 97  and
1 May 98, be removed from his records; and,  he  receive  consideration  for
direct promotion to colonel by the CY98C (P0698C) central colonel  selection
board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The negative stigma associated with the T-3A aircraft used at the Air  Force
Academy during his tenure  as  Commander,  557th  Flying  Training  Squadron
resulted  in  mediocre  OPRs.   Based  on  these  mediocre  OPRs,   he   was
nonselected for promotion to colonel.  Before he took command, he  met  with
the 12th Flying Training Wing and 19th Air Force  Commanders  and  was  told
very clearly that the aircraft had continuing maintenance problems and  that
there were concerns about the students’ training syllabus.  Within weeks  in
the squadron, he confirmed that although dozens of these  issues  were  well
documented, many of them had not been acted upon.  Over the next two  years,
he and  his  staff  continued  to  alert  his  superiors--before  the  fatal
training accident of 1997.  The accident  and  safety  investigation  boards
determined that the squadron’s safety/training programs and  his  leadership
were neither causal nor contributory  in  any  way  and  the  Air  Education
Training Command  (AETC)  inspectors  lauded  his  aggressive  reporting  of
maintenance deficiencies.

Given the high visibility of  the  Academy,  the  national  media  not  only
reported the initial accidents  but  they  also  followed  up  with  lengthy
articles and even a television segment.  There were  also  dozens  of  local
newspaper  articles  in  Colorado  Springs.   The  public  pressure  on  the
Academy, AETC, and the Pentagon was intense and  did  not  stop  until  well
after the aircraft was permanently grounded in July 1998 and well  after  he
relinquished command.

He received two mediocre OPRs and both OPRs made several references  to  the
fatal mishaps, and the “bullets” detailed his commitment  to  restore  faith
in the T-3A and its mission, Enhanced Flight Screening  Program.   According
to a colonel at AFPC who provided his  non-select  counseling,  he  was  not
promoted due to the  additional  rater’s  reference  to  the  “two  Class  A
mishaps” and the weak last lines in Section VI and VII  in  the  97-98  OPR.
Additionally, references were made in the rater and additional rater  blocks
to the mishaps in the 96-97 OPR.  Based on this  overwhelming  evidence,  he
believes an injustice is undeniable in his case.

In support of his request applicant provides  a  supportive  statement  from
the unit maintenance officer; documents and news articles regarding  the  T-
3A;  a  copy  of  his  duty  history;  and  copies  of  OPRs  and  Promotion
Recommendation Forms (PRFs).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service as  30  May
1979.  He is currently serving on active duty in the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel, with a date of rank and an effective date of 1 March 1994. He  was
considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of  colonel  by  the
CY98C, CY99A, CY00A and CY01B colonel selection boards.

The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                  1 May 01        MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
                  1 May 00        MS
                  1 May 99        MS
                 *1 May 98        MS
                 *1 May 97        MS
                  1 May 96        MS
                 14 Jun 95       TRAINING REPORT
                  2 May 94        MS
                  2 May 93        MS

* - Contested Reports

During the contested rating periods, the applicant  received  two  AF  Form
709’s, Promotion Recommendation Form, for the P0697B and  P0698C  Selection
Boards and received an overall recommendation of “Promote.”   Additionally,
the applicant’s record indicates he was  awarded  the  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM), First Oak Leaf Cluster, for the period 19 July 1996 - 13  July
1998, while a Squadron Commander, 557th Flying  Training  Squadron,  United
States Air Force Academy, MSM for the period 1 January 1986  -  29 December
1987 while assigned to the Military  Airlift  Command,  Scott  AFB,  Aerial
Achievement Medal for the period 12 October 1990 - 30 September 1991  while
a C-5 Aircraft Commander in the Persian Gulf region  and  a  Joint  Service
Commendation Medal for the period 12 February 1988 - 31 May 1990.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends the  application  be  denied.   DPPP  states  that  the
applicant did not file an  appeal  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports nor under  the  governing
instruction at that time, AFI  36-2402,  Officer  Evaluation  System.   DPPP
states the applicant provided evidence to support his contention that the T-
3A aircraft received  negative  publicity.   However,  he  did  not  provide
evidence his evaluators were biased.

The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APFC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO  states  that  since
the application cannot be  time-barred,  the  test  to  be  applied  is  not
whether  the  applicant  discovered  the  errors  within  three  years,  but
whether, through due diligence, they were discoverable.  DPPPO  states  that
the applicant does not provide  a  concrete  explanation  for  filing  late.
DPPPO states that they hope the AFBCMR will consider direct  promotion  only
in the most extraordinary circumstances where  SSB  consideration  has  been
deemed to be totally unworkable.  Furthermore, DPPPO states,  that  although
the applicant provided evidence to support his  contentions  that  the  T-3A
aircraft received negative  publicity,  he  did  not  provide  evidence  his
evaluators were biased.  Thus his case does not warrant direct promotion  or
SSB consideration.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded by indicating that the “time-bar” recommendation is  not
applicable in his case.  He states that the reason he  waited  to  file  was
because if he had asserted that he was given poor OPRs because the  aircraft
was flawed at the time the OPRs were prepared, it would  have  been  only  a
statement of his “opinion” with nothing to back it up.  The  court  findings
supported what he knew to be true — - the T-3A aircraft was flawed.

Applicant disagrees with DPPPO’s  recommendation  that  his  case  does  not
warrant a direct promotion and that he  pursue  an  SSB.   With  two  voided
OPRs, he sincerely questions whether or not an  SSB  would  fairly  consider
his record and promote him without knowing how he performed  on  the  myriad
of squadron commander duties.  Applicant states there is no  way  to  get  a
fair chance on an SSB and that is why he requested a direct promotion.
Applicant disagrees with the assertion that he failed  to  provide  evidence
of evaluator bias.  If the evaluators were not biased,  then  what  resulted
in his non-selection to 0-6?   He  requests  an  examination  of  the  board
statistics and a calculation of the odds that a record of his quality  would
not be selected.  He states there is nothing in his record before  or  after
his  non-selection  that  indicated  that  he  was  a  top   performer   who
“regressed.”  Applicant states that his  superiors  tried  to  downplay  the
crashes  while  highlighting  how  he  handled   the   extremely   difficult
circumstances with the grieving wives and parents.  His superiors failed  to
mention in his OPRs that he warned  several  people,  to  include  them,  on
multiple occasions of the dangers of the aircraft for  fear  that  it  might
suggest negligence on their part.

Applicant’s submission 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or  injustice.   After  reviewing  all  of  the  evidence
provided, we are  not  persuaded  that  the  contested  Officer  Performance
Reports (OPRs) are inaccurate depictions of the applicant’s performance  and
demonstrated potential for the periods  in  question.   We  have  noted  the
applicant’s  contentions  concerning  the  tenor  of  the  comments  in  the
contested  reports  and  his  allegations  of  bias  on  the  part  of   the
evaluators.  However, while the applicant may  believe  this  is  the  case,
there is nothing in the evidence provided which would  lead  us  to  believe
that the OPRs in question are the result of bias or that they were  prepared
with any motivation on the part of  the  evaluators  other  than  to  report
their assessments of the applicant’s performance.  To  the  contrary,  while
others may have written the reports differently, we  could  discern  nothing
overtly negative or even questionable in the evaluators’ comments.  We  have
noted the supportive statement  provided  for  our  review  and,  while  the
author’s comments are enlightening with respect  to  the  historical  events
during that period of time, they do not provide support for the  applicant’s
assertions concerning the  intentions  of  the  evaluators  or  the  alleged
shortcomings of the reports.  We note that, in the  rating  process,  it  is
the responsibility of evaluators to assess a ratee’s performance,  honestly,
and to the best of their ability.  Other than his own  assertions,  we  have
seen  no  evidence  by  the  applicant  that  the  evaluators  abused  their
discretionary authority, that the report is technical flawed,  or  that  the
evaluators comments are  based  on  inappropriate  considerations.   In  the
absence of  such  evidence,  the  applicant’s  request  that  the  contested
reports be voided is not favorably considered.

4.  In view of the above and in the absence of any evidence that the  record
placed  before  the  CY98C  Colonel  Selection  Board   was   erroneous   or
misleading, we have no basis to find that the applicant’s consideration  for
promotion  by  that  board  was  unfair  or  inequitable.   Therefore,   the
applicant’s request for promotion to colonel is denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 10 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr, Panel Chair
            Mr. Clarence D. Long, Member
            Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 31 Jan 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Mar 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 02.





                                   ROSCOE HINTON JR
                                   Panel Chair