RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01557

                       COUNSEL:  GARY MYERS

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered  for  the  periods   8
April 1996 to 7 April 1997  and  8  April  1997  to  11  May  1998  be
corrected to reflect command push  statements  and  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) considerations for promotion to the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel for the Calendar Years 2000 to 2003 Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

According to his AFPC non-selection counselor, the only  void  in  his
records was a lack of "command push statements"  in  his  middle-major
OPRs. (Command push statements are phrases that indicate an officer is
"on  track"  or  "ready"  for  command).   He  was  stationed  at  RAP
Mildenhall as part of HQ 3rd AF and the l00th Air Refueling Wing  from
June of 1992 to June of 1998. During that time, he had two  particular
OPRs written on him,    (8 Apr 96 - 7 Apr 97, and 8 Apr 97  -  11  May
98) which did not include command push statements.  It  is  these  two
OPRs in particular that were  the  ones  that  AFPC  referred  to.  He
informed the commander that the 100th ARW did not allow these types of
statements because they were considered "veiled promotion  statements"
which were, and are still, considered verboten. However,  he  informed
him that the Air Force did not consider them as such, that  they  were
allowed, and that many of his peers across the AF had  them  on  their
OPRs. HQ AFPC/DPAO personnel advised him to get his supervisors at the
time, to write new statements that could be incorporated into the OPRs
in question. He did this and submitted a package to the ERAB on 3  Jun
2002. This request was denied because, although the supervisors agreed
to change the wording on the affected OPRs  to  reflect  command  push
statements, they  did  not  state  they  were  given  faulty  guidance
regarding the statements. He then resubmitted the request  package  on
20 Nov 2002 (Tabs 3 - 12). This time  he  supplied  e-mails  from  his
supervisors that showed they remembered  some  controversy  about  the
command push guidance, but could not remember any  of  the  particular
details surrounding it (Tab 11). He also included a memorandum to  the
former 100th Mission Support Squadron  (100MSS)  commander,  (Tab  9).
The commander explained that he saw hundreds of OPRs come through  his
office and he was very knowledgeable about  AFPC  guidance  concerning
command push statements.  He, in no  uncertain  terms,  verified  that
command push statements were not  allowed  at  Mildenhall  during  his
tenure at Mildenhall and cited a now, unrecoverable  message,  stating
so.  This request was also denied by the ERAB (Tab 3).

He believes this entire situation is an injustice.   RAF  Mildenhall’s
policy concerning command push statements prior  to  an  AFPC  message
dated 081900ZOCT96 (Tab 10) was  that  they  were  not  allowed.   The
commander’s letter states that RAF  Mildenhall  adhered  to  the  more
restrictive policy (i.e. not allowing command push statements).   Once
the  above  mentioned  AFPC  message  (Tab  10)  was  published,   the
guidelines were supposedly relaxed.  The ERAB claims this message  did
allow command push statements and thus is the basis for  their  denial
in their letter dated 11 December 2002 (Tab 3).  The  ERAB  apparently
wants irrefutable proof that  his  supervisors  were  operating  under
erroneous guidance.  As his supervisors claim in their  emails,  their
recollection of events is not perfect but they do recall  restrictions
on command push statements (Tab 11).  He  cannot  make  them  remember
something that happened so long ago.  He can  only  provide  the  best
possible evidence, which he has done.  He feels that the ERAB’s  claim
that the 1996 message allows command pushes is faulty.  Paragraph 2 of
the message states, “As a general rule, prohibited statements are  any
comments, either direct or implied, that refer to a higher grade.  For
example, comments  that  state  the  individual  is  performing  above
his/her grade, occupying a position requiring  a  more  senior  grade,
comparing an individual to officers of higher rank or  alluding  to  a
higher ranking position are all prohibited.”

Attachment 1 of AFI 36-2401 states that evidence presented to the ERAB
must be credible, relevant, and believable.  As  for  credibility,  he
has his own, three Lt Colonels and  two  flag  officers  recollections
that back his position.  The issue is relevant due to  the  fact  that
the guidance came out around the time  the  OPRs  were  written.   The
believability issue solidifies  his  argument.   Is  it  too  hard  to
believe that RAF Mildenhall and USAFE had  more  restrictive  guidance
than AFPC.  The opening paragraph of  the  081900ZOCT96  AFPC  message
(Tab 10) states “We’ve had an increase  in  the  number  of  questions
regarding veiled promotion statements on  OPRs.   Some  MAJCOM  staffs
have already released direction on this matter.”  He tried to  recover
USAFE’s MAJCOM message concerning the  issue,  to  no  avail,  but  he
believes this is the message Lt Col P___ cites.  Is  it  too  hard  to
believe that there was confusion surrounding the  command  push  issue
and that Mildenhall erred on  the  conservative  side,  especially  in
light of how inconsistent  AFPC  applied  their  own  guidance.   Once
again, he feels that this situation is quite believable and  the  ERAB
is not following its own guidance.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits  copies  of  letters  from
AFPC/DPAO/DPMPE,  a   copy   of   AF   Form   948,   Application   for
Correction/Removal of Evaluation  Reports  package,  copies  of  OPRs,
emails and letters of recommendations from his commanders  and  deputy
group commander.

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 major.

Applicant has five nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
the CY99A, CY99B, CY00A,  CY01B,  CY02B,  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central
Selection Boards.  The applicant has also  met  the  CY03A  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board, however, the results have not been  released.


The applicant filed two similar appeals under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,  1  December
1997, which the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied.

In the first ERAB appeal (17 Jul 02), the applicant contended  his  97
and 98 OPRs should be substituted because his  evaluators  were  given
erroneous  guidance  when  preparing  the  reports.   The   evaluators
supporting the changes never mentioned they were given faulty guidance
only that they supported the changes.  The  ERAB  noted  it  would  be
inappropriate to change a report solely  because  HQ  AFPC  counselors
observed omitted remarks could have contributed to a nonselection  for
promotion.

In the second ERAB appeal (11 Dec 02) the applicant’s contentions were
the same but he provided new evidence in the form of an  AFPC  message
outlining guidance for veiled promotion statements  at  the  time  the
reports were written.  However, the message provided did not prove the
applicant’s contention; on the contrary it supported the fact that the
rating chain was well informed  that  the  policy  did  allow  command
recommendations.

_________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial and notes that the applicant  states  in
his letter to the BCMR that the 100th ARW did not allow  command  push
statements, but did not provide any evidence to prove this allegation.
 Actually the  applicant  provided  a  letter  from  the  Director  of
Personnel during the time the reports were accomplished stating he was
well aware of the policy concerning promotion statements  and  command
recommendations.  The applicant went on to say that his  rating  chain
recalled restrictions on command pushes, and  while  this  is  a  true
statement never was  it  mentioned  that  the  rating  chain  recalled
command pushes were completely prohibited.  The applicant also  argued
that there is no normal progression for Major to Lt Col in his  career
field to receive command push  within  AFPC  guidelines;  however  the
member received a command push on his 95 and 96  OPRs  from  the  same
location.  As such it isn’t clear how the member contends the base had
an  inappropriate  policy.   Finally,  the  applicant  states  it  was
interesting to note that  AFPC  was  still  putting  out  guidance  on
“command push” statements.  While this statement is actually true,  it
is similar to every other program in the  Air  Force.   Guidance  will
continue to go out to the field to ensure members  are  familiar  with
what current policy as was the case with the Oct 96 message.

One point the member neglected  to  mention  was  the  fact  that  the
additional rater (100 Air Wing/Commander) on the 7 April 1997 OPR  did
include an assignment recommendation, “MAJCOM  staff  position  next.”
There are no errors or injustices cited in the 7 April 1997 and 11 May
1998 OPRs.  The applicant requests that the AFBCMR substitute his OPRs
based on the fact that they are lacking  command  recommendations.  He
has not included command recommendations.  The fact remains  that  the
applicant was counseled after nonselection for promotion that the  two
reports in question may have been viewed as weak because they did  not
include a command push; however, the rating chain never came  on  line
and stated they were working under faulty guidance.  This is clearly a
retrospective view years after the initial assessment was rendered and
a  clear  attempt  to  get  the  applicant  another  opportunity   for
promotion.

AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO recommend denied and stated  that  based  on  the  evidence
provided, and the recommendation  in  the  AFPC/DPPPE  advisory,  they
recommend denial.

AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel reviewed the advisory opinions and stated that  in
typical fashion the DPPPE advisory opinion fails totally to  recognize
this line of inescapable logic and declared without analysis, “As such
it  isn’t  clear  how  the  member  contends  that  the  base  had  an
inappropriate policy.”  It further declared, “He (applicant)  has  not
provided any evidence to support his allegation that  faulty  guidance
led to his report not including command recommendations.”

We agree that “it would be inappropriate to  change  a  report  solely
because HQ AFPC counselors” made observations about  omitted  remarks.
Since applicant has not done that, the observation is irrelevant.

Lastly, the advisory opinions, as they always  do,  suggest  that  the
raters’ and additional raters’ requests  for  changing  the  OPRs  are
“retrospective thinking” and  not  reflective  of  those  individual’s
views at  the  time.   This  hackneyed  rationale,  uttered  regularly
without analysis, fails miserably here.  There  are  no  command  push
statements in either OPR.  The raters and senior raters  did  not  say
that they knowingly eliminated such statement.  To the contrary,  they
willingly provided them when the problem was identified.   There  were
few things that commanders  remember  more  vividly  about  those  who
served for them, than those who should  not  be  allowed  to  command.
Applicant did not rest within that group of rated officers.   For  the
foregoing reasons relief should be provided.

Counsel 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 an error or injustice.  In support of his contention, the
applicant provided statements from his rating chain, which has led  us
to believe that the contested OPRs did not  accurately  portray  their
assessment of applicant’s promotion potential.  Given the  unequivocal
support from these senior Air Force officers involved, and  having  no
plausible reason to doubt their integrity in this matter,  we  believe
that the contested OPRs should be corrected  and  that  he  should  be
considered by SSB for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by
the selection boards in question.  Therefore, in  view  of  the  above
findings, we recommend that his records be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

4.    The applicant's case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 8 April 1996 through 7  April  1997,  be
amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last
line with, “Exemplary officer and  exceptional  leader/manager.  Ready
for command. Send to Senior  Service  School!”  and  in  Section  VII,
Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line  with,
“A top performer and trusted advisor, challenge with command and  AWC.
MAJCOM staff next!”

      b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report  (OPR),  AF  Form
707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1997 through  11  May  1998,  be
amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last
line with, “Proven performer with superb potential. Ready for command.
 Send to Senior  Service  School  immediately”  and  in  Section  VII,
Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line  with,
“Top performer with skills to handle any  job--definitely  select  for
command and Senior Service School.”

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Years  CY00A,  CY01B,  CY02B  and  CY03A  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Boards and for any subsequent boards  in  which  the
above correction was not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01557 in Executive Session on 8 January 2004, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
            Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, 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 30 Apr 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 28 May 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Aug 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03
     Exhibit F.  Applicant’s Counsel Response, dated 3 Nov 03




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-01557




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 APPLCIANT, be corrected to show that:

           a.    The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF
Form 707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1996 through 7 April 1997,
be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the
last line with, “Exemplary officer and exceptional leader/manager.
Ready for command. Send to Senior Service School!” and in Section
VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line
with, “A top performer and trusted advisor, challenge with command
and AWC.  MAJCOM staff next!”

           b.    The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF
Form 707A, rendered for the period 8 April 1997 through 11 May 1998,
be amended in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the
last line with, “Proven performer with superb potential. Ready for
command.  Send to Senior Service School immediately” and in Section
VII, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, by replacing the last line
with, “Top performer with skills to handle any job--definitely select
for command and Senior Service School.”

      It is further directed that he be considered for  promotion  to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by  Special Selection Board  for  the
Calendar  Years  2000A  through  2003A  Central  Lieutenant   Colonel
Selection Boards.






      JOE G. LINEBERGER

      Director

      Air Force Review Boards Agency