RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00031
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)  for  the  CY01B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Board be corrected to reflect his correct duty history.

2.  The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered  for  the  period  10  May
1998 through  26  February  1999  be  replaced  with  a  reaccomplished  OPR
rendered for the same period and that he  receive  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  for
the Calendar Year CY01B Selection Board.

By amendment, the applicant indicates that his request for an SSB  is  moot,
due to the fact that the OSB was corrected in time for the  CY02  lieutenant
colonel board and he was promoted.  His request before  the  Board  is  that
his duty performance be properly documented by a reaccomplished OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  original  26  February  1999  OPR   had   significant   accomplishments
inadvertently left out due to a change in reporting official (CRO) that  was
backdated.  The failure to  include  these  accomplishments  resulted  in  a
mediocre OPR that did  not  accurately  reflect  his  performance  for  that
rating period and possibly contributed to his  non-selection  for  promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel.











The rewritten OPR was submitted  to  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) in January 2002 but was rejected based upon the incorrect  assumption
that he was aware of the CRO in May 1998.  The  statement  from  his  former
rater clarifies that this CRO actually occurred in  November  1998  and  was
backdated to May 1998.   He also states in his haste to retire he failed  to
notify him of the backdated CRO.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  a
reaccomplished Officer  Performance  Report  for  the  period  10  May  1998
through 26 February 1999, letter from the  rater,  dated  18 December  2001,
letter from  his  former  supervisor,  dated  12  April  2002,  the  Officer
Selection Brief prepared for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel  Selection
Board, and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered and not selected for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel  by  the  CY01B  (5  November  2001)  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board.   However,  he  was  considered  and  selected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY02B  (12  November
2002) central lieutenant colonel selection board and promoted to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel effective 1 April 2003.

The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for  the  CY01B  Selection  Board
did not reflect the correct duty history (27 August 1991 and  30  June  1994
entries) in the Assignment History section.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  The OSB was correct for the CY02 board, but was  incorrect
for the CY01 board.  Applicant has not  received  SSB  for  the  CY01  board
based on this correction at this time.

The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI  36-
2401 and the appeal was considered and denied by the ERAB.   They  concluded
that the applicant did not provide clear  evidence  the  contested  OPR  was
erroneous or unjust.  They further indicated, “retrospective views of  facts
and circumstances 3 years after the report is  written,  will  not  overcome
the ERAB’s presumption that the initial assessment is valid.”

AFPC/DPAO has advised that the  Assignment  History  of  the  OSB  has  been
updated to reflect the DAFSC of 1531 effective 27 August 1991 and the  DAFSC
of 12S3Y effective 30  June  1994  with  a  duty  title  of  AC-130  Mission
Manager.

OPR profile since 1996 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                   9 May 96  Meets Standards (MS)
                   9 May 97                  (MS)
                   9 May 98                  (MS)
                * 26 Feb 99                  (MS)
                  30 Mar 00                  (MS)
                  30 Mar 01                              (MS)
                  30 Mar 02                                   (MS)

* Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They indicated that the  applicant  contends
that due to a backdated change in reporting official, his rater  was  unable
to  provide  a  fair  and  accurate  assessment  of  his  performance.   The
applicant  has  provided  supporting  memorandums  from  his  rating   chain
emphasizing that due to a backdated Change in Reporting Official (CRO),  his
26 February 1999 OPR does not adequately reflect his  contributions  to  his
unit during the time frame in question.  They  have  examined  the  proposed
substitute OPR in its entirety.  They have concluded that there is  not  any
additional information on the proposed report that was not  known  when  the
original OPR was completed.  In fact, most  of  the  bullets  are  the  same
except that they  have  been  “strengthened”  and  reworded  to  be  “harder
hitting.”  As stated by the ERAB, “the time to do that is before the  report
becomes a matter of record.”  Air Force policy is that an evaluation  report
is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of  record.   There  are  no
errors or injustices cited in the 26 February 1999 OPR.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO deferred to AFPC/DPPPO for Special Selection Board  consideration.
 They indicated that the  applicant’s  CY01B  Lieutenant  Colonel’s  Central
Selection  Board  Officer  Selection   Brief   (OSB)   contained   incorrect
assignment  history    information.   The   applicant’s   current   Military
Personnel Flight (MPF)  has  obtained,  reviewed,  and  verified  supporting
documentation and has updated the applicant’s duty history.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial.  They  indicated  that  in  addition  to  the
Officer Preselection Brief  (OPB)  the  applicant  received  for  the  CY01B
Board, for his in-the-promotion zone consideration, they point out  that  he
also received OPBs for  the  CY00  (28 November  2000)  and  the  CY99B  (30
November  1999)  below-the-promotion   zone   central   lieutenant   colonel
selection boards.  The contended incorrect duty history  entries  were  also
reflected  on  both  of  the   OSBs   for   his   below-the-promotion   zone
considerations, as well.  They question why the applicant  did  not  attempt
to challenge the contested errors on  his  OPBs  for  the  CY00A  and  CY99B
boards.

While it may  be  argued  that  the  incorrect  OSB  was  a  factor  in  the
applicant’s  nonselection,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  this  data
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  They are not  convinced  the
administrative  errors  in  the  duty  history  from  8  and  11  years  ago
contributed to the applicant’s promotion nonselection.

The evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluations and indicated that  in  reference  to
the OPR, AFPC asserts that most of the bullets are the same,  when  in  fact
bullets 2 and 3 of the rater’s section are both new.  His original  OPR  was
flawed  because  there  was  no  discussion  between  raters  regarding  his
performance before the original OPR was written.  Due to a permanent  change
of station (PCS) he was not given the opportunity to review the  flawed  OPR
before the report became a matter of record.  The SSB issue  is  moot.   The
OSB was corrected to reflect the correct duty history in time for  his  CY02
lieutenant colonel board and he was promoted.

Applicant’s complete response 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting the OPR  closing  26  February
1999 be replaced with a reaccomplished OPR covering the  same  period.   The
applicant contends that his original 26 February 1999  OPR  had  significant
accomplishments  inadvertently  left  out  due  to  a  change  in  reporting
official  (CRO)  that  was  backdated.   The  failure   to   include   these
accomplishments resulted in a mediocre OPR that did not  accurately  reflect
his performance for that rating period and possibly contributed to his  non-
selection  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel.    After
reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the rating  chain  members
provided an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance at  the  time
the report was rendered.  We have reviewed the comments  by  the  evaluators
of the contested  report  and  do  not  find  their  statements  provide  an
adequate basis to recommend approval of the requested relief.   Further,  it
is our opinion that  the  statements  provided  in  support  of  the  appeal
constitute retrospective assessments  of  the  applicant’s  performance  and
potential, written as well-meaning after-the-fact attempts  to  enhance  the
applicant’s promotability.  Such motivations are not sufficient  to  support
findings that the contested  OPR  itself  was  erroneous  or  unjust.   With
regard to the issue of the incorrect duty history, we do not  believe  these
errors were so egregious  as  to  not  provide  him  a  fair  and  equitable
promotion consideration.  In addition, the applicant had at  least  90  days
prior  to  the  convening  of  the  CY01B  board  to  examine  his  OPB  for
completeness and accuracy.  The applicant indicates  that  he  did  identify
the errors and reported them to his MPF and  relied  on  them  to  make  the
changes.  However, we are not persuaded by the evidence  provided  that  the
applicant exercised due  diligence  in  making  sure  the  corrections  were
processed prior to the board  and  thereby  ensure  that  his  records  were
correct prior to the  convening  of  the  promotion  board.   The  applicant
argues that the corrected OSB was a factor in his  selection  for  promotion
by the CY02 board because the alleged flawed OPR was still in his  record  -
the only difference was  the  corrected  OSB.   However,  we  have  seen  no
evidence that the error on his OSB caused his record to be so  erroneous  or
misleading  that  the  duly   constituted   selection,   vested   with   the
discretionary authority to select officers  for  promotion,  was  unable  to
make a reasonable decision concerning  the  applicant’s  promotability  when
compared to his peers.  We note that, in  addition  to  the  corrected  OSB,
when he was considered by the CY02 board, he had an additional  OPR  in  his
record and a Definitely Promote promotion recommendation form.   Presumably,
any or all of these  factors  could  have  resulted  in  his  selection  for
promotion by the CY02 board.  Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendations of the appropriate offices of  primary  responsibility.   In
view of th  e above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find
no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
00031 in Executive Session on 26 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 December 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 February 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter AFPC/DPAO, dated 16 April 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 April 2003.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 2003.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 May 2003.




                                JOESPH A. ROJ
                                Panel Chair