RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00472
            INDEX CODE:  111.05

            COUNSEL:  Mr. David P. Sheldon

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing on 17 Feb 00, 17 Feb  01,
and 17 Feb 02, be removed from his records and replaced with  reaccomplished
OPRs closing 20 Oct 99, 20 Oct 00, and 20 Oct 01.

2.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the  Calendar  Year
2000A  (CY00A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  be  replaced  with  a
reaccomplished PRF.

3.  He be considered for promotion to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB).

4.  His assignment history be changed to reflect the correct duty title.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His time and performance as the --th Air Wing, Chief,  Protocol  Operations,
was not adequately documented.  His supervisor had 116 days  of  supervision
as reflected in the personnel data system even though he worked for her  for
7 months.  She was incorrectly told that his records could not be  backdated
to reflect the correct dates and therefore she only  prepared  a  Letter  of
Evaluation (LOE) upon his departure.  He was later advised  that  backdating
was done frequently in cases such as his and should have been  done  in  his
case.  The omission of a  permanent  change-of-station  (PCS)  OPR  had  the
effect of creating a questionable portrait  of  his  performance.   Further,
his PCS decoration was not fully processed  for  over  a  year.   These  two
issues, an LOE and no  PCS  decoration  left  his  new  commander  with  the
impression that his previous performance was less than stellar.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation associated with his Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
appeal, letters of support, copies of the contested reports, copies  of  the
corrected  reports,  his  duty  history.   His  complete  submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air  Force,  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.   He  has
been progressively promoted to the  grade  of  major,  having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 97.  He was considered  and
not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  the  CY00A
(28 Nov 00), CY01B (5 Nov  01),  and  the  CY02B  (12  Nov  02),  lieutenant
colonel selection boards.  He currently has a projected date  of  separation
of 31 Oct 05.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.   DPPPE  states  that  the  applicant's  rater
states herself that she was not officially listed as the  rater  until  mid-
June 1999, when she assumed the  position  as  Director  of  Protocol.   She
states, "Before I  assumed  the  position,  it  was  the  policy  then  that
everyone reports  directly  under  the  Director  of  Protocol  for  OPR/EPR
purposes".  This clarification by the rater specifically addresses  why  his
change of rating official did not  occur  until  mid-June  1999,  eventually
leading to insufficient supervision for the rater to complete an OPR.   LOEs
cover periods of ratee performance too short to require an OPR,  or  periods
of time when the rater is under someone other  than  the  designated  rater.
LOE's are optional.  The next evaluator uses them  to  prepare  the  ratee's
next OPR as indicated in AFI 63-2402, which is  exactly  the  procedure  the
rater followed.

The applicant requests substitution of the 17 Feb 01  and  17  Feb  02  OPRs
based on the anticipation that the AFBCMR will void the 17 Feb 00  OPR.   If
the Board were to substitute the 17 Feb 00 OPR, it would be  appropriate  to
replace the 17 Feb 01 and 17 Feb 02 OPRs to realign the  reporting  periods.
Regarding his request to replace his PRF, DPPPE states that there  has  been
no change to the applicant's record of performance.  To change  Section  IV,
the senior rater must demonstrate there was a material error in the  process
by which the PRF was crafted.

A report is not erroneous  or  unfair  because  the  applicant  believes  it
contributed to his nonselection for  promotion.   A  simple  willingness  by
evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a  valid  basis  for
doing so.  The applicant must prove that the report is erroneous  or  unjust
based on its content.  It appears that the applicant did not  view  this  as
an error until after his nonselection for promotion.  The  DPPPE  evaluation
is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO recommends that the Board time-bar  the
applicant's request to correct his duty history entry from four  years  ago.
Clearly, the errors were discoverable when they occurred.  His duty  history
entry has since been updated in the personnel data  system.   However,  each
eligible  officer  for   promotion   consideration   received   an   Officer
Preselection Brief (OPB) 90-100 days prior to the board convening.  The  OPB
contains data that  will  appear  on  the  Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB).
Written  instructions  provided  to  each  eligible   officer   specifically
instruct the officer to carefully examine the  brief  for  completeness  and
accuracy.  If any errors are found, corrective action must  be  taken  prior
to the board, not after it.   Since  the  applicant  did  not  exercise  due
diligence to ensure his record was correct prior to the board,  SSB  is  not
warranted.   Additionally,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  this  data
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  The DPPPO evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reiterated the applicant's contentions, provided a  summary  of  the
applicant's career and states in order for a  performance  report  to  serve
its intended purpose  it  must  correctly  reflect  a  member's  performance
history.  Decisions based on incorrect performance reports do not serve  the
underlying policy of  fairness  and  accuracy.   DPPPE's  position  in  this
matter is untenable.  The applicant does not challenge the accuracy  of  the
assessments of his performance contained in the 17 Feb  01  and  17  Feb  02
OPRS, rather the 17 Feb 00 OPR contains serious errors and  injustices.   At
the time of his departure, the applicant did not  receive  an  OPR  covering
seven months he served  under  Lt  Col  C---.   Although  Lt  Col  T---  was
initially assigned as his rater, Lt Col T--- knew that he was  scheduled  to
depart within 8 weeks.  Lt Col  states  that  his  secretary  erred  by  not
transferring him to Lt Col C---- as did occur  with  all  other  individuals
working for Lt Col T---.  As a result, his rater was obligated  to  complete
an OPR based on only 120 days of supervision for a period  that  covered  15
months.  In effect creating a 15-month gap in  the  applicant's  performance
record.  The content of an OPR based on an administrative error,  that  does
not accurately reflect the time period during which the applicant  performed
his duties must be considered erroneous and unjust.

His PRF was erroneous and unjust because it contains  information  based  on
the erroneous 17 Feb 00 OPR and the failure to provide the applicant with  a
decoration in a  timely  manner.   It  took  more  than  one  year  for  the
applicant to receive a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) earned  as  a  result
of his contributions.  The PRF contained a material error  in  that  it  did
not reflect the existence of the MSM that was awarded.  By the time the  MSM
was awarded his senior rater had already prepared  his  PRF  for  the  CY00A
promotion board.  The senior rater states that the content of  the  original
PRF would have been materially  different  if  he  had  known  of  the  MSM.
DPPPE's assertion that "there has been no change to the  applicant's  record
of performance" is simply mistaken.  The presence or absence of the MSM  and
the OPR were primary factors in his "racking and stacking" being lower  than
he otherwise would have had.  It is evident that the absence of the MSM  and
the  OPR  strongly  influenced  his  senior  rater's   perception   of   the
applicant's past performance.  The senior rater was  led  to  conclude  that
his "former commander had no interest in his career and had, in  fact,  sent
a message that this officer was not a top performer."

DPPPO's position that he did not exercise reasonable  diligence  is  without
merit.  Upon arrival at his new duty station, the applicant learned  of  the
administrative  error  and  immediately  contacted  the  Military  Personnel
Flight for advice.  He was advised that he should pursue correction  of  the
error through his former  rater  asking  that  she  backdate  his  OPR.   He
diligently pursued such informal remedies to no avail.  He did not learn  of
his option to apply for correction through the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeals
Board (ERAB) and began  preparing  his  application  in  April  2000.   This
remedy was pursued prior to the convening of the CY00A selection board.   He
diligently pursued remedies in obtaining his MSM after he  departed  Andrews
AFB.  He was led to  believe  that  the  decoration  was  forwarded  to  the
appropriate individuals when in fact it was buried on the secretary's  desk.
 Once the secretary admitted that she had not forwarded the  decoration,  it
was processed.

In support of his request, counsel provided  a  brief,  documents  from  the
applicant's  record  of  performance,  and  a  statement  of  support.   His
complete submission, with attachments, 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 timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice warranting partial relief.  In this  regard,
it appears that upon his assignment to the Andrews AFB Protocol Office on  2
Apr 99, he was assigned under the supervision of Lt Col  T---,  who  at  the
time was projected to depart on a  permanent-change-of-station  (PCS)  move.
In April 1999, change of reporting official (CRO) actions were  accomplished
for the officers assigned under Lt  Col  T---  to  ensure  proper  reporting
coverage.   However,  a  CRO  was  not  accomplished  for   the   applicant.
Statements provided in support of his appeal have led  us  to  believe  that
although he  was  assigned  under  the  supervision  of  Lt  Col  T---,  the
applicant actually worked directly for Lt Col C--- even though she  was  not
assigned as his rater until June 1999.  As a result,  upon  the  applicant's
reassignment in October 1999, there was  insufficient  supervision  for  his
rater to prepare an OPR and the applicant received  an  LOE.   A  subsequent
OPR  was  prepared  closing  17  Feb  00,  which  included   accomplishments
extracted from the LOE.  The applicant believes  that  his  17  Feb  00  OPR
should be replaced with an OPR closing 20 Oct 99.  We  agree.   Although  it
appears that the established procedures were properly followed by  providing
the applicant an LOE, he has provided credible evidence which has led us  to
believe that had he been properly CRO'd under the supervision of Lt Col C---
 in April 1999, he would have had the  requisite  120  days  supervision  to
prepare an OPR upon his departure in October 1999.  In addition, we  believe
that because the applicant was not placed under the supervision of Lt Col C-
-- along with the other officers, he was inadvertently  treated  differently
and  dealt  an  injustice.   We  believe  that  in  order  to  correct  this
injustice, the OPR provided by the applicant closing 20  Oct  99  should  be
inserted in his record, the reports closing 17 Feb 00, 17  Feb  01,  and  17
Feb 02 should be declared void, the reports closing 20 Oct 00,  and  20  Oct
01, should be  inserted  in  their  place,  and  any  subsequently  prepared
reports be adjusted accordingly.  Therefore, we recommend that  his  records
be corrected to the extent indicated below.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we do not believe the applicant has been  the
victim of an error or injustice with regard to his request  to  replace  his
PRF with a corrected PRF.  Evidence has not been presented which would  lead
us to believe that the contested PRF as written, is an inaccurate  depiction
of his potential to serve in the next higher grade.  We  are  not  persuaded
that there were any errors or improprieties in his promotion  recommendation
process.  With respect to his  contention  that  his  PRF  would  have  been
materially different had his MSM been completed in  a  more  timely  matter.
His contentions are duly noted.  However, we note that  in  accordance  with
established policy, a decoration recommendation must be submitted  within  2
years and awarded within 3 years of the service performed.   The  decoration
in  question  was  awarded  well  within  the  established  timelines;   and
therefore, we do not find any errors of  injustices  with  respect  to  this
matter.  Our decision does not preclude  the  applicant  from  requesting  a
review of his record from the appropriate senior  rater  and  MLR  President
along with his corrected record.  If they  agree  that  his  PRF  should  be
corrected, then the option to request reaccomplishment of  his  PRF  through
the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  process  is  available  to  him.
Applicant's duty history has been corrected in the Military  Personnel  Data
System.

_________________________________________________________________

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  AF  Form  707A,  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),
rendered for the period  12  December  1998  through  17 February  2000,  be
declared void and replaced with the  attached  report  reflecting  inclusive
dates of 22 December 1998 through 20 October 1999.

b.  The OPR rendered for the period 18  February  2000  through  17 February
2001, be declared void and replaced  with  the  attached  report  reflecting
inclusive dates of 21 October 1999 through 20 October 2000.

c.  The OPR rendered for the period 18  February  2001  through  17 February
2002, be declared void and replaced  with  the  attached  report  reflecting
inclusive dates of 21 October 2000 through 20 October 2001.

d.  The OPR rendered for the period 18  February  2002  through  31  October
2002 be amended to reflect a beginning date of 21 October 2001.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by Special  Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year
2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel  Selection  Board,  to  include  the  above
corrections, and any subsequent board, in which the  replaced  OPRs  were  a
matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
00472 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 03, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member


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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Jul 03, w/atchs.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-00472




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The AF Form 707A, Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR), rendered for the period 12 December 1998  through  17 February  2000,
be, and hereby is, declared void  and  replaced  with  the  attached  report
reflecting inclusive dates of 22 December 1998 through 20 October 1999.

            b.  The OPR rendered for the period  18  February  2000  through
17 February 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void  and  replaced  with  the
attached report reflecting  inclusive  dates  of  21  October  1999  through
20 October 2000.

            c.  The OPR rendered for the period  18  February  2001  through
17 February 2002, be, and hereby is, declared void  and  replaced  with  the
attached report reflecting  inclusive  dates  of  21  October  2000  through
20 October 2001.

            d.  The OPR rendered for the period 18 February 2002 through  31
October 2002 be amended to reflect a beginning date of 21 October 2001.

            It is further directed that he be considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the  Calendar
Year 2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, to include the  above
corrections, and any subsequent board, in which the  replaced  OPRs  were  a
matter of record.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachments:
1.  OPR closing 20 Oct 99
2.  OPR closing 20 Oct 00
3.  OPR closing 20 Oct 01