RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03931
      INDEX CODE 131.01  111.01  111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  closing  9  Feb  01  and  the
Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for  the  Calendar  Year  2002A
(CY02A) Major Central Selection Board be removed from his records  and
he be promoted to the grade of major or be afforded Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR is a minimization and incomplete  representation  of
his duty performance (37% of duties omitted).  The  report’s  lack  of
substance  proved  prejudicial  to  his  promotion  consideration.  By
calling attention  to  his  “personal  tragedy,”  the  PRF  invariably
brought  attention  to  a  most  disdainful  experience  unworthy   of
highlighting. Despite the dissolution of his 15-year marriage and  his
becoming a single parent to two teenage boys, he performed his  duties
exceptionally and served as a vibrant role model.

He includes, among other documents, emails  between  himself  and  the
CY02A PRF senior rater,  who  indicates  the  applicant  will  not  be
competitive unless the 9 Feb 01 OPR is removed. The senior rater  adds
the comment on the PRF did not hamper the applicant’s chances; on  the
contrary, it was to convince the selection  board  to  look  past  the
contested report’s weakness.

The 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 captain with a date of rank (DOR) of 29 Jul 96.

The applicant was nonselected for major by the CY02A (19 Feb 02),  the
CY02B (3 Oct 02), and the CY03A (5 May  03)  Major  Central  Selection
Boards.  The PRFs for all three boards reflect overall recommendations
of “Promote.” Section IV of the contested CY02A PRF contains  a  final
remark: “Personal Tragedy in 2000 hurt. Not representative--read  all!
Lab PM--ISS ASAP--Definitely Promote Now!” The contested 9 Feb 01  OPR
does not contain references to a personal situation.

On 13 Aug 03, the Evaluation Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  denied  a
similar appeal filed under the provisions of AFI 36-2401  because  the
applicant did not provide any  support  that  the  OPR  and  PRF  were
inaccurate assessments.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes  the  contested  OPR  contains  no  mention  of  a
“personal tragedy.”  Short  drops  in  performance  are  expected  and
“overlooked”  for  most  members  at  some  point  in   their   career
(especially  when  personal  tragedies  are  involved);  however,  the
difficult part is when the drop in performance is prolonged and begins
to impact the AF mission. Only the evaluators at the time  can  assess
the overall duration and any impact and, in this case, the  evaluators
have not been heard from. DPPPE concurs with the senior rater that the
comment on the PRF did not  hamper  the  applicant’s  chances.  Senior
raters often use the PRF for such comments when there is a  noticeable
weakness in a record. There are no errors or injustices cited  in  the
contested OPR and the mention of a “personal tragedy”  by  the  senior
rater in the PRF was a bona fide effort  to  help  the  applicant  get
promoted.  The  applicant  does  not  appear  to  have  exercised  due
diligence to correct the OPR and PRF prior  to  the  promotion  board.
DPPPE adds that  the  article  “The  Current  Officer  Evaluation  and
Promotion System” included in the applicant’s submission reflects  the
views  of  its  author  based  on  his  own  findings   and   is   not
representative of the Air Force in general. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing to add to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s evaluation.  Since
denial is recommended, SSB consideration is not warranted.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims his previous supervisor wanted to submit a Letter
of Evaluation (LOE) for the 37% of omitted duty performance.  However,
AFI 36-2501 prohibited this. He  did  not  believe  any  “action”  was
necessary as he truly envisioned  subsequent  promotion  boards  would
recognize and reward both his superior duty  performance  (across  his
entire career vs. one  unfavorable  reporting  period)  and  promotion
potential.  This  was  supported   by   reasonable   assurances   from
supervisors and personnelists. As for the PRF  comment,  according  to
the former AFPC Chief of Officer Promotions,  this  was  a  very  non-
positive strategy to present to  the  selection  board.  Reversing  an
initial nonselection is a near impossibility and a major flaw  of  the
system.  Contrary  to  the  HQ  AFPC/DPPPE  advisory,  there   is   no
documentation that he had a prolonged drop in performance; his OPRs do
not reflect this assumption. Allowing one “snap-shot” of an evaluation
to be so professionally  and  irreversibly  damaging  is  unjust.  The
senior rater, who did the damage he is now challenging, can hardly  be
expected to discredit everything he  wrote.  There  is  no  reasonable
method by which he can provide the “factual” evidence  to  refute  the
lack-of-veracity of either the OPR or PRF. He asks for the Board to do
the “right thing” and promote him to major.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit F.

The rater of the OPRs closing 26 Mar 98 and 99 provided  a  supporting
statement, indicating the applicant was deeply affected by  the  long,
drawn-out dissolution of his marriage. The former  rater  believes  if
not  for  the  applicant’s  unfortunate  marital  situation,  and  the
resulting impact it had on his morale and performance, he surely would
have been promoted. The former rater is aware  of  the  prejudices  of
“old school officers” who think a man is weak if  he  stumbles  a  bit
through a divorce. The injustice of this outdated  mindset  should  be
rectified by promoting the applicant to major.

The rater of the OPRs closing 30 Jun 02, 3 Feb 03, and 8  Sep  03  and
the  applicant’s  immediate  supervisor   also   provided   supporting
statements. They describe  his  outstanding  performance  under  their
observation.

The  applicant’s  commander  also  provides  a  supporting   statement
recommending promotion.

Complete copies of the four supporting statements are 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 to warrant  partial  relief.   The
applicant has not sustained his allegation that the contested OPR is a
misrepresentation of his duty performance during that  rating  period.
The report makes no reference to the applicant’s domestic problems and
he has not persuaded us the OPR as written is inaccurate or unfair and
should be voided. Therefore, this portion of  the  applicant’s  appeal
should be denied. As for the PRF, we  believe  the  senior  rater  was
attempting to get the selection board to look past any  weakness  that
may have  temporarily  affected  the  applicant’s  career.  We  cannot
determine with certainty whether the “personal tragedy” comment on the
PRF negatively impacted the applicant’s promotion opportunity or  not.
However, the possibility exists that  the  promotion  board  may  have
misunderstood the senior rater’s intention and was  unduly  distracted
by  this  “highlighting”  of  a  personal  problem.   To  offset   any
possibility of an injustice, we suggest the CY02A PRF  be  amended  by
partially deleting the last  line  in  Section  IV  to  eliminate  the
offending comment, but that the form remain otherwise  unchanged.  The
applicant was contacted via email by the AFBCMR Staff  and,  on  8 Apr
04, indicated his willingness to amend the PRF  as  suggested,  rather
than voiding it as he originally requested (see Exhibit H). Therefore,
we conclude the PRF should be amended as recommended and the applicant
be afforded SSB consideration for the CY02A selection board  with  the
amended PRF in his record.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the last line  in
Section IV of the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF),  AF  Form  709,
for the Calendar Year 2002A (CY02A)  Central  Major  Selection  Board,
reflects “Lab  PM--ISS  ASAP--Definitely  Promote  Now!”  rather  than
“Personal Tragedy in 2000 hurt. Not representative--read all! Lab PM--
ISS ASAP--Definitely Promote Now!”

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of major by a Special Selection  Board  for  the  CY02A  Central
Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 7 and 8 April 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                                  Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03931 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 93, w/atchs,
                       & Memo for Record, dated 20 Nov 03.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 5 Jan 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Jan 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 04.
   Exhibit G.  Letters (4), Supporting, dated 3 Mar 04,
                       10 Mar 04, undated, & 10 Mar 04.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Apr 04.



                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-03931




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 the last line in
Section IV of the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709,
for the Calendar Year 2002A (CY02A) Central Major Selection Board,
reflects “Lab PM--ISS ASAP--Definitely Promote Now!” rather than
“Personal Tragedy in 2000 hurt. Not representative--read all! Lab PM--
ISS ASAP--Definitely Promote Now!”

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the CY02A Central
Major Selection Board.






   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency