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
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01476 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 21 June 1998 through 4 May 1999 be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C, CY99A, and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03639
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03639 INDEX CODE: 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 April 1999 through 31 March 2000 be removed from his records; Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02815
Thus, her length of time at the USAFA was in the best interest of the USAFA and the Air Force and it is an injustice for her to be penalized for supporting the USAFA. To her knowledge there were only three non-rated officers across the Air Force with DP recommendations that were not promoted. The Board also consideration changing only the duty title on the OPR and PRF; however the Board majority is not persuaded by the evidence presented that she has substantiated that the duty titles...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00500
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the rater is simply letting the applicant know that her assessment was what she intended it to be at the time and she has no valid reason to change her assessment four years later. Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 7 May 04. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-2004-00500 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF...
Additionally, DPPP states that the applicant’s request for correction was for Section X, Senior Rater, to include the rank and branch of service of the senior rater and in Section IV, line 9 from, “first tour USAF Chaplain” to “second active duty tour.” DPPP recommends denial for an SSB based on the OPR not being available for the CY01A CSB. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated either his OPR contained material errors, or he was placed at a disadvantage at the promotion board because the OPRs of other individuals contained prohibited comments. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a...
At the time the applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C board, the DMSM was reflected on his OSB but the citation was missing from his officer selection record (OSR). The reports outline what is missing from an officer’s OSR and request that the MPF notify the member and provide copies to AFPC for filing in the OSR prior to the board convening date. Even though the DMSM (Basic) citation was not on file in the OSR when the board convened, they knew of its...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03876
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03876 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods 11 March 1997 to 10 March 1998 and 11 March 1998 to 10 March 1999, and the P0600A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), be declared void and...