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  reaccomplished,  and  he  be  given  promotion  and   in-residence
professional military  education  (PME)  consideration  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) for that board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not discover the rater’s  bias  towards  him  until  after  the
report was prepared and the rater had rendered an unfair assessment of
his performance. The OPR is unfairly prejudicial because  it  resulted
in the omission of PME and assignment recommendations. This  reflected
a downgrade from  all  previous  OPRs.  The  rater  provided  multiple
unverifiable  reasons,  unrelated  to  performance,  to  explain   the
omission. As shown in numerous AF instructions, pamphlets and  OPR/PRF
writing guides, PME and assignment recommendations are the universally
regarded method raters use to convey to selection boards the potential
of an officer to serve in the next higher  grade.  Omission  of  these
recommendations sends a negative signal.  In  the  highly  competitive
environment for selection to lieutenant colonel, an omission  of  this
magnitude contributes significantly  to  nonselection  for  promotion.
Also, contrary to what is indicated on the OPR,  performance  feedback
was not conducted and the number of days of supervision was  less.  He
provides  supporting  statements  from  individuals,   including   the
additional rater and reviewer, attesting to the rater’s prejudice.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major. During the period in question, he was  the  Director,  Advanced
Programs, with ----. He was subsequently assigned to  the  Directorate
of Operational Requirements, ----.

He has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the
CY99A (19 Apr 99), CY99B (30 Nov 99), CY00A (28 Nov 00), and the CY01B
(5 Nov 01)  promotion  boards.  The  CY99A  PRF  reflects  an  overall
recommendation of “Promote.”  The senior rater of the CY99A PRF had 11
in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ)  officers  and  awarded  four  “Definitely
Promote (DP)” recommendations. An OPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING         EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

            28 Feb 97        Meets Standards
            28 Feb 98        Meets Standards
            24 Oct 98        Meets Standards (CY99A top report)*
            24 Oct 99        Meets Standards
            17 Jul 00        Meets Standards (CY00A top report)
            17 Jul 01        Meets Standards (CY01B top report)

*Contested report

The applicant submitted a similar appeal  to  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) under AFI 36-2401 (provided  at  Exhibit  A).  The
ERAB denied his appeal on 7  Apr  00,  indicating  that  PME  and  job
recommendations  are  not  required  comments  on  reports  and  their
omission did not prove the existence of a personality conflict.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes that while there is no  guidance  prohibiting  the
use of PME or assignment recommendations, there is  also  no  guidance
making them mandatory.  A rater is not biased  against  an  individual
simply  because  he  chooses  not  to  include  a  PME  or  assignment
recommendation. Although both the additional rater and reviewer  state
they  were  aware  of   the   importance   of   PME   and   assignment
recommendations, they signed the OPR without the  recommendations.  It
is logical to assume they questioned the lack of these recommendations
when the contested report was initially prepared  and  were  satisfied
with the answers prior  to  signing.  This  point  is  somewhat  moot,
however, since even if they did question it, the rater  was  under  no
obligation to change his assessment.  The applicant, additional  rater
and review state they were  unaware  of  the  rater’s  bias  until  he
refused to support the appeal to include the recommendation. The  only
evidence provided to substantiate the rater’s bias is the lack of  PME
and assignment recommendations on the OPR and the rater’s  refusal  to
include them at this time. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The HQ AFPC/DPPPO concurs with DPPPE’s advisory, has  nothing  further
to add and recommends that SSB consideration be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends the evidence he provided proves two  conditions
existed at the time the contested report was written. First, as stated
by  the  rater,  the  OPR  was  written  under  conditions  that  were
contradictory with Air Force instructions on the preparation of  OPRs.
Second, the evidence demonstrates  the  rater  held  a  bias.   Either
condition is sufficient to demonstrate the report is unjust and should
be voided. He specifically addresses the evaluations’  arguments.   HQ
AFPC concluded that the lack of the pertinent  recommendations  was  a
deliberate omission on the rater’s part.  In  which  case,  they  must
therefore conclude that the rater’s claim  about  misunderstanding  or
being misinformed of --- policy is untrue and they must further  agree
the rater manufactured his reasons for the omission to  mask  a  bias.
In  conclusion,  the  advisory  opinions  did  not  consider  all  the
available evidence to prove the report was unjust. He asks  the  Board
to disregard the  AFPC  recommendations  and  grant  his  appeal.   He
provides a cover letter and a reaccomplished PRF from the senior rater
for SSB consideration.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE  provided  additional  comments,  noting  that  the  PRF
provided by the applicant is  incomplete.  It  does  not  indicate  an
Overall Recommendation in Section IX (Definitely Promote, Promote,  or
Do No Promote This Board).  Changing Section IV  requires  concurrence
of both the  senior  rater  and  the  management  level  review  (MLR)
president.  The senior rater will need  to  demonstrate  there  was  a
material error  in  the  PRF,  in  the  record  of  performance  which
substantially impacted the content of the PRF or  in  the  process  by
which the PRF was crafted.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation is at Exhibit G.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  provided  an  evaluation,  indicating  that  since  HQ
AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial of the contested OPR, there is no  basis
to warrant SSB consideration at this time.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_____________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts in his 10 Jan 03  rebuttal  that  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE
confirmed the significance of PME and assignment recommendations in an
OPR, reinforcing the view that omissions are significant  and  send  a
clear message to anyone preparing PRFs or  board  members  considering
candidates for promotion. The principle reason for the  appeal  is  to
strike the contested report from the official  record  to  remove  the
negative information. This would be a substantive change to the record
of performance deemed to have an impact on PRF content and rating.  He
indicates the PRF will  be  returned  to  the  senior  rater  and  the
complete PRF with letters confirming the  concurrence  of  the  senior
rater will be forwarded to the AFBCMR within 4-6 weeks.   The  current
PRF in the appeal should be withdrawn pending receipt of the completed
PRF and letters.

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at Exhibit J.

The applicant was advised by the AFBCMR Staff on 31 Jan 03  and  again
on 11 Feb 03  that,  since  his  case  was  approaching  the  10-month
Congressionally  mandated  deadline,  he  needed  to  either  expedite
submitting the supporting letters and reaccomplished PRF  or  withdraw
his case until these documents were obtained.  Otherwise,  the  AFBCMR
had no recourse but to forward his case for the Board’s  consideration
and final resolution.

On 19 Feb 03, the senior rater and MLR president forwarded  statements
to  the  AFBCMR,  along  with  a  reaccomplished  PRF.   The   overall
recommendation is  “Promote.”   Both  believe  the  contested  OPR  is
unjust, should be removed and the applicant receive SSB  consideration
with the reaccomplished PRF provided.

The senior  rater  and  MLR  president  statements,  as  well  as  the
reaccomplished PRF, are at Exhibit K.

_____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant voiding  the  contested
OPR and granting SSB  consideration  for  the  CY99A  board  with  the
reaccomplished PRF provided.   The  applicant  and  his  rating  chain
originally were unaware of any bias on the  rater’s  part.   When  the
applicant confronted the rater about the lack of  PME  and  assignment
recommendations, the rater told him that a change in an agency  policy
allegedly  precluded  his   including   such   comments.    This   was
subsequently determined to  be  untrue.  However,  we  note  that  the
additional rater did include a PME and assignment recommendation.  The
overwhelming support from the additional rater, the reviewer, and  the
MLR president, makes the rater’s position and motive somewhat suspect.
Since the rating chain asserts the OPR adversely impacted the PRF, and
a rewritten PRF is provided,  we  are  persuaded  that  the  contested
report should be  voided  so  as  to  offset  any  possibility  of  an
injustice.  Its voidance and the  willingness  of  the  evaluators  to
submit a reaccomplished PRF justify the applicant being  afforded  SSB
consideration for the CY99A board,  and  this  we  so  recommend.  The
applicant’s request for PME candidacy determination will  be  part  of
the SSB process.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

     a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR),  AF  Form
707B, rendered for the period 1 March 1998 through 24 October 1998, be
declared void and removed from his records.

     b.  The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF),  AF  Form   709,
rendered for  the  Calendar  Year  1999A  (CY99A)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board be declared void and  replaced  with  the  PRF
provided, which reflects “Send this future commander to Joint SSS!” as
the last statement in Section IV.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY99A
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for all boards in which
the 24 October 1998 OPR was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
                  Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.  The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  02-
01151 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 Jun 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Aug 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Nov 02.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Dec 02.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Dec 02.
   Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, 10 Jan 03.
   Exhibit K.  Letters, Senior Rater & MLR President,
                  dated 5 & 19 Feb 03, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair





AFBCMR 02-01151




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        , be corrected to show that:

           a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF
Form 707B, rendered for the period 1 March 1998 through 24 October
1998, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

           b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709,
rendered for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and replaced
with the PRF provided, which reflects “Send this future commander to
Joint SSS!” as the last statement in Section IV.

      It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the
CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for all boards in
which the 24 October 1998 OPR was a matter of record.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaccomplished PRF
EXAMINER