RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00495
            INDEX CODES:  111.02, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 21 May 98
through 20 May 99 be declared void and removed from  his  records  and
replaced with the reaccomplished OPRs rendered for the periods 21  May
98 through 30 Dec 98 and 31 Dec 98 through 3 Jun 99.

He be provided Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  promotion  to  the
grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year  1999A  (CY99A)
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It was the intent of his rating chain to change his reporting official
effective 30 Dec 98, thus requiring a  change  of  reporting  official
(CRO) OPR to be written for the period 21 May 98 to 30 Dec 98.

His next report should have been written  as  a  permanent  change  of
station (PCS) OPR covering the period 31 Dec 98 through 3 Jun 99.

These  changes  would  represent   a   significant   change   to   his
competitiveness for promotion and would warrant SSB consideration.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, copies  of  the  contested  and  reaccomplished  OPRs,  and
supportive statements from his rating chain.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, with a date of rank of 1 Jul  95.   His  Total  Active  Federal
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 14 Oct 83.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1989 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      13 May 89              Meets Standards
      13 May 90              Meets Standards
      13 May 91              Meets Standards
      13 May 92              Meets Standards
      31 Oct 92              Meets Standards
      31 Oct 93              Meets Standards
      31 May 94              Meets Standards
      31 May 95              Meets Standards
      20 May 96              Meets Standards
      20 May 97              Meets Standards
    # 20 May 98              Meets Standards
    * 20 May 99              Meets Standards
   ## 18 Oct 99              Meets Standards
  ### 30 Aug 00              Meets Standards
 ####  8 Jun 01              Meets Standards
#####  8 Jun 02              Meets Standards

* Contested Report.

    # Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A  (19 Apr 99)
Lt Col Board.

   ## Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B  (30 Nov 99)
Lt Col Board.

  ### Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A  (28 Nov 00)
Lt Col Board.

 #### Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the  CY01B  (5 Nov 01)
Lt Col Board.

##### Top Report at the time he was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B  (12 Nov 02)
Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  They noted the applicant’s  contention
that it was his rating  chain’s  intention  to  change  his  reporting
official effective 30 Dec 98, thus requiring a CRO OPR to be  written.
The applicant specifically states that “it was decided to hold off  on
any CROs for a month or two until things settled down a bit.  This was
to prevent  possible  multiple  CROs  and  unnecessary  administrative
paperwork.”  Evidenced by the applicant’s  own  admission,  AFPC/DPPPE
indicated that it is reasonable to believe that the rating  chain  was
unsure who would be working for who  with  the  upcoming  “significant
personnel  changes”;  therefore,  they  decided  not  to  change   the
applicant’s reporting official.

As to the applicant’s  contention  that  it  was  his  rating  chain’s
intention to change his reporting official, AFPC/DPPPE stated that  it
was unclear as to why they would  have  completed  the  OPR  with  the
rating chain intact.  It can only be concluded that  when  the  rating
chain sat down to complete the applicant’s OPR, they were  well  aware
of exactly who his rater, additional rater, and senior rater  were  at
the time the OPR closed out.  This was also evidenced in Section VI of
the report itself.  The rater indicated the last performance  feedback
was conducted on 8 Jan 99, after the 30 Dec 98 date  a  CRO  allegedly
took place.

AFPC/DPPPE believes that it is important to note  that  the  applicant
submitted a previous appeal which was approved by the AFBCMR on 27 Apr
01.  He was subsequently granted supplemental promotion consideration.
 However, he was  again  nonselected  for  promotion.   The  applicant
failed to bring up this most recent concern surrounding the 20 May  99
OPR at that time.  This nonselection  has  prompted  his  reengagement
with the AFBCMR to grant him an additional SSB (knowing  that  if  the
AFBCMR approves a change to his 20 May 99 OPR, that would give him  an
additional  opportunity  to  compete  for  promotion).   According  to
AFPC/DPPPE, a report is not erroneous or unfair because the  applicant
believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion.  Nonselection
for promotion is, for many, a  traumatic  event,  and  the  desire  to
overturn that nonselection is a  powerful  motivation  to  appeal.   A
simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report
is not a valid basis for doing  so.   The  applicant  must  prove  the
report is erroneous or unjust based on its content.  Additionally,  in
accordance with DoD  Directive  1320.l1,  paragraph  4.3,  “A  Special
Selection Board  shall  not,  under  Section  628(b)  or  14502(b)  of
reference  (b),  consider  any  officer  who  might,  by   maintaining
reasonably careful records, have discovered and taken steps to correct
that error or omission on which the original board based its  decision
against promotion.”  It is Air Force policy that an evaluation  report
is accurate as written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record.   In
AFPC/DPPPE’s view, there were no errors or injustices cited in the  20
May 99 OPR.  The applicant’s contentions have  been  poorly  supported
and inaccurate.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial, indicating that they had  reviewed  the
AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory and had nothing further to add, and  that  since
AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, the applicant indicated, in part,  that  the
AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory opinion was fraught with inaccurate, incomplete,
and misleading  claims  that  were  erroneously  portrayed  as  facts.
AFPC/DPPPE completely side-stepped the central issue  of  whether  his
records were inaccurate in favor of arguing intent  and  process.   He
hopes that the Board finds his arguments convincing and  is  compelled
to agree with him.

Applicant’s complete response 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.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence presented, we  are  sufficiently  persuaded  that  corrective
action is warranted in this case.  We  took  particular  note  of  the
statements from the applicant's rating chain supporting his  assertion
that it was their intent to change his reporting official.  In view of
the foregoing, and having no basis to question the  integrity  of  the
evaluators, we recommend that  the  contested  report  be  voided  and
replaced with the reaccomplished OPRs closing 30 Dec 98 and 3 Jun  99.
Although not specifically requested by the applicant, we believe  that
to afford him proper and fitting relief, the signature  dates  on  the
reaccomplished reports and the  start  date  and  number  of  days  of
supervision on his OPR closing 18 Oct 99 should also be  appropriately
changed.  Accordingly, the applicant's records should be corrected  as
set forth below.   We  further  recommend  that  he  be  provided  SSB
consideration with his corrected records.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Field Grade Officer Performance  Report  (OPR),  AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 21 May 98 through 20 May 99 be  declared
void and removed from his records.

      b.  The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the
period 21 May 98  through  30  Dec  98  be  inserted  in  his  officer
selection folder.

      c.  All dates in Sections VI, VII, VIII, and IX of the  attached
Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered  for  the  period  21  May  98
through 30 Dec 98 be amended to read "30 Dec 98."

            d.  The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form  707A,  rendered
for the period 31 Dec 98 through 3 Jun 99 be inserted in  his  officer
selection folder.

      e.  All dates in Sections VI, VII, and IX of the attached  Field
Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 31 Dec 98  through  3
Jun 99 be amended to read "3 Jun 99."

      f.  The "From" date in Item 5 and the "Number of Days of
Supervision" in Item 6 of Section I of the Field Grade OPR, AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 21 May 99 through 18 Oct 99 be amended
to read "4 Jun 99" and "134."

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 1999A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and for
any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 20 May 99 was a matter
of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00495 in Executive Session on 22 Jul 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Apr 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 13 May 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 3 Jun 03.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair









AFBCMR BC-2003-00495




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 Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR),
AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 21 May 98 through 20 May 99 be,
and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

            b.  The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered
for the period 21 May 98 through 30 Dec 98 be inserted in his officer
selection folder.

            c.  All dates in Sections VI, VII, VIII, and IX of the
attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 21 May
98 through 30 Dec 98 be amended to read "30 Dec 98."

                 d.  The attached Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A,
rendered for the period 31 Dec 98 through 3 Jun 99 be inserted in his
officer selection folder.

            e.  All dates in Sections VI, VII, and IX of the attached
Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 31 Dec 98
through 3 Jun 99 be amended to read "3 Jun 99."

            f.  The "From" date in Item 5 and the "Number of Days of
Supervision" in Item 6 of Section I of the Field Grade OPR, AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 21 May 99 through 18 Oct 99 be amended
to read "4 Jun 99" and "134."

            It is further directed that he be considered for promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for
the Calendar Year 1999A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and
for any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 20 May 99 was a
matter of record.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachments:
AF Forms 707A