RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01942
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In his original DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, the applicant  requested
that the Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  on  him  for  the
period 1 Jan 00 through 31 Dec 00 be replaced with a revised report.

The applicant submitted a new DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 03, as part  of
his response to the Air Force  evaluations  and  makes  the  following
amended requests:

        a.  The OPR rendered on him for the period 1 Jan 00 through 31
Dec 00 be voided and removed from his records.

        b.  He be promoted directly to the grade of colonel or in  the
alternative he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel  by
special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2001A Central
Colonel  Selection  Board  and  any  subsequent  boards  that  he  was
considered but not selected for promotion.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR does not include any of the accomplishments  he  had
during over 100 days of  assignment  to  the  Office  of  the  Surgeon
General during the reporting period.

His rater and additional rater mistakenly signed the wrong OPR because
of the hectic  holiday  period.   They  have  provided  statements  in
support of his appeal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal  Military  Service  Date
(TAFMSD) is 8 Jan 83.  A review of his last ten OPRs indicates overall
ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant filed  a  similar  appeal
with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on 1 Apr 02.  The ERAB
denied the applicant’s appeal on  29 Apr 02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  completely
void his OPR, but  recommends  that  the  applicant  be  permitted  to
substitute  section  IV,  “Impact  on  Mission  Accomplishment,”  with
section IV of the proposed revised report.

Although  the  applicant  previously  contended  the  evaluators  were
unaware of his accomplishments for the Office of the Surgeon  General,
he now contends the evaluators, due to the hectic  holiday  season  of
2000, signed the wrong OPR.  However, the applicant has  provided  the
same documentation provided to the ERAB.

Although  the  entire  report  has  been  rewritten,  the   only   new
information from the first 101 days in the SG office added to the  OPR
is in Section IV, lines 1 and 2.  The remaining changes appear  to  be
embellishments   on   information   that   was    previously    known.
Additionally, there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  typographical  or
administrative errors to suggest a draft OPR  was  erroneously  signed
and processed.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by requesting that
his case be temporarily withdrawn.

The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit E.

Applicant reopened his case by submitting an amended DD Form  149  and
is now represented by counsel.  Counsel submits applicant’s case in  a
21-page brief with attachments.

Applicant’s counsel provides the background on the events that led  to
the applicant  receiving  the  contested  OPR.   He  states  that  the
applicant’s OPR was prepared in a highly expedited manner so  that  it
would be considered by the  CY01A  Central  Colonel  Promotion  Board.
Consequently, it was not subjected to the normal procedural safeguards
and resulted in an  erroneous  and  unjust  OPR  being  filed  in  the
applicant’s record.  This OPR was the top report  in  the  applicant’s
record when he was considered for promotion.  The  applicant’s  raters
have provided statements that their failure to include information  on
the applicant’s performance as Executive  Officer  to  the  Air  Force
Deputy Surgeon General rendered the OPR incomplete and inaccurate.

Counsel provides a summary of the applicant’s performance  during  his
Air Force career with excerpts from past OPRs used to illustrate  that
the  applicant  is  considered  an   exceptional   officer   who   has
consistently demonstrated outstanding  leadership  and  administrative
abilities. Counsel further  discusses  the  events  that  led  to  the
applicant’s  original  application  to  the  AFBCMR  to  replace   the
contested OPR with a revised report.   Counsel  notes  that  AFPC/DPPP
recommended that the applicant’s request to replace the entire  report
be denied and that the report only be revised to the  extent  that  it
include assessments of the applicant’s performance during his time  as
Executive Officer.  Counsel indicates that this recommended relief  is
inadequate.  While it would correct the  deficiency  relating  to  the
applicant’s service as Executive Officer,  it  would  not  remedy  the
deficiencies caused by the raters’ hurried preparation of the OPR  and
their failure to review and edit the draft OPR in a manner  consistent
with Air Force directives.

Counsel discusses how the applicant’s contested  report  violates  Air
Force policy.  He asserts that the  raters  violated  AFI  36-2406  by
having the applicant draft or write any portion  of  his  report.   He
further contends  that  the  raters  did  not  exercise  due  care  in
fulfilling their obligations to ensure that the OPR was  an  accurate,
fair, and unbiased account of the  applicant’s  performance.   Counsel
notes that AFPC/DPPP states that the applicant did not  provide  fresh
documentation to substantiate his claims that the applicant signed the
wrong OPR during the hectic holiday season of 2000.  Counsel  contends
that to do this would have required the  raters  to  admit  to  having
violated Air Force directives in preparing the OPR.  Though the errors
and injustices made by the  raters  were  without  malice,  they  were
inconsistent with the  spirit  and  letter  of  Air  Force  policy  on
performance reporting.

Counsel indicates that a proper remedy for the errors  and  injustices
contained in the contested  OPR  is  for  the  Board  to  promote  the
applicant directly to the grade of colonel.  Such  relief  is  fitting
where the applicant can demonstrate a strong likelihood that he or she
would have been promoted but for an erroneous  and  unjust  OPR.   The
applicant’s performance history is virtually without flaw.  Just prior
to  his  primary  promotion  board,  the  applicant  had  received   a
“Definitely Promote” recommendation while in “below the zone”  status.
The erroneous and unjust OPR led to the “Promote” rating the applicant
received on his Promotion Recommendation Form for the CY01A  promotion
board.  Counsel states that it is reasonable that had  a  correct  and
proper OPR been signed and entered into  the  applicant’s  record,  he
would have been selected for promotion.  This gives the  AFBCMR  ample
justification to directly promote the applicant to  colonel.   Counsel
discusses their alternate request, the  applicant’s  consideration  by
SSB, should the Board decide not to directly promote the applicant.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 warranting a change in Section  IV  of
the OPR closing 31 Dec 00.  While  we  note  the  applicant’s  amended
request for complete removal of the OPR closing 31 Dec  00,  we  agree
with AFPC/DPPP’s observation that the only new  information  added  to
the contested OPR are lines one and two in Section IV.  The  remainder
of the report appears to have been rewritten  simply  to  enhance  the
presentation  of  previously  included  data.   As  such  we  are  not
persuaded  that  the  entire  report  should  be  removed   from   the
applicant’s record or substituted with the initially provided  revised
report.  We accept AFPC/DPPP’s recommendation that Section IV  of  the
applicant’s original OPR be  substituted  with  Section  IV  from  the
proposed revised OPR.  While not persuaded that the contested OPR  was
the cause of the applicant’s nonselection for promotion, he does  have
the support of his rating chain to make changes  to  the  OPR.   As  a
result of this recommended  change,  we  believe  that  the  applicant
should be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB  for
any board that the contested OPR was a matter of  record.   Therefore,
we recommend that the applicant’s records be  corrected  as  indicated
below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant his  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by the CY01A Central  Colonel  Selection  Board.   In
this regard, the Board observes that officers  compete  for  promotion
under the whole person concept  whereby  many  factors  are  carefully
assessed by  selection  boards.   An  officer  may  be  qualified  for
promotion but, in the judgment of a selection board  vested  with  the
discretionary authority to make the selections, may not  be  the  best
qualified of those available  for  the  limited  number  of  promotion
vacancies.  Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut  evidence  that  he
would have been a selectee had his folder  reflected  the  recommended
change on the contested  OPR,  we  believe  that  a  duly  constituted
special selection board applying the complete promotion criteria is in
the most advantageous position to  render  this  vital  determination;
and, that its prerogative to  do  so  should  only  be  usurped  under
extraordinary circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the   Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered  for  the  period         1
January 2000 through 31 December  2000,  be  amended  in  Section  IV,
“Impact on Mission  Accomplishment,”  by  deleting  all  comments  and
replacing them with the following:

      -Superior skills produced great results at  Air  Staff;  Medical
Programs and Resources Division (AF/SGMM)

       -Insightful  knowledge  of  senior   leadership   interactions;
marvelous transition for new exec to Deputy SG

      -Assumed command and immediately produced outstanding results in
several areas of the Medical Group
       --Cut red tape; created consensus among  contracting,  CE,  and
contractors; stalled project back on track

      -Insightful; negotiated with AFPC, produced swift  hiring  of  a
critically needed Group Practice Manager

      -Increased squadron pride and identity  with  a  first-ever  43d
Medical Support Squadron official emblem

      -Assisted over 250 people at Retiree Appreciation Day understand
impact of FY 2000 NDAA legislation

      -Expertly mentored a staff sergeant; produced an outstanding new
Medical Service Corps officer accession

      -Furthered  Team  Pope’s  international  reputation  by  helping
sponsor the Egyptian team at Rodeo 2000

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by Special Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year
2001A Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent  boards  that
this OPR was a matter of record.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2002-
01942 in Executive Session on 5 November 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 17 Jul 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Aug 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 7 Oct 03,
                 w/atchs.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2002-01942


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 XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show  that
the Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the  period
1 January 2000 through 31 December 2000, be, and hereby is, amended in
Section IV,  “Impact  on  Mission  Accomplishment,”  by  deleting  all
comments and replacing them with the following:

            -Superior skills produced  great  results  at  Air  Staff;
Medical Programs and Resources Division (AF/SGMM)

            -Insightful knowledge of senior  leadership  interactions;
marvelous transition for new exec to Deputy SG

            -Assumed  command  and  immediately  produced  outstanding
results in several areas of the Medical Group
              --Cut red tape; created consensus among contracting, CE,
and contractors; stalled project back on track

            -Insightful; negotiated with AFPC, produced  swift  hiring
of a critically needed Group Practice Manager

            -Increased squadron pride and identity with  a  first-ever
43d Medical Support Squadron official emblem

            -Assisted over 250  people  at  Retiree  Appreciation  Day
understand impact of FY 2000 NDAA legislation

             -Expertly  mentored  a  staff   sergeant;   produced   an
outstanding new Medical Service Corps officer accession

            -Furthered Team Pope’s international reputation by helping
sponsor the Egyptian team at Rodeo 2000

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar
Year 2001A Central Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent
boards that this OPR was a matter of record.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency