RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2004-00500
      INDEX CODE 111.01, 111.03, 111.05, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  Raymond J. Toney

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending  14 Aug  98
be declared void and removed from his records, he be directly promoted
to the grade of lieutenant colonel or afforded Special Selection Board
(SSB) consideration, and he be awarded all back  pay,  allowances  and
benefits as well as eligibility to command a squadron.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was deprived of a fair opportunity for promotion consideration. The
rater intentionally weakened the contested OPR report because she  was
noticeably  offended  and  embarrassed  when  the  applicant’s  family
arrived late at a local community event over which she was  presiding.
Her relationship with the applicant took a downhill  turn  thereafter.
The rater chose prejudicial and colloquially inappropriate language in
the OPR, sending a message to the promotion board that  the  applicant
was  not  a  top-performing   officer.   She   never   expressed   any
dissatisfaction, either formally or informally, to the applicant  over
his performance as an executive officer. There is no basis-in-fact  to
justify the rater’s tepid and damaging assessment of  the  applicant’s
overall performance. Counsel contends the rater admitted  the  content
of the OPR was erroneous and unjust  in  an  email.  He  requests  his
client be directly promoted to lieutenant colonel.

A general officer, who was the senior rater  of  the  CY01B  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) and the reviewer of the OPRs  closing  8 May
01 and 02, provides a supporting statement. He  indicates  he  has  no
doubt that, if the contested report were strengthened or removed,  the
applicant  would   have   received   a   “Definitely   Promote   (DP)”
recommendation and been promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel.
Also included in the appeal package is a 20  May  02  email  from  the
rater of the contested report, who states the OPR was  not  erroneous,
just not as strong as it could  have  been.  She  adds  the  executive
officer job did the applicant no favors, as it was not his forte.  She
notes the previous rater of the applicant’s executive  officer  period
also did not include stratification or promotion recommendation.

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 major with a date of rank (DOR) of  1  Oct  97.  He  was  the
executive officer to the commander (rater) of the 15th Air  Base  Wing
(15 ABW) at Hickam AFB, HI, from approximately 5 Apr 97 to 27 Oct  98.
He received two performance reports in this capacity, an OPR  for  the
period closing 14 Aug 97, and the  contested  report  for  the  period
closing 14 Aug 98. Two different raters rendered these OPRs.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel in/above the promotion zone by  the  CY01B
(5 Nov 01), CY02B (12 Nov 02), and CY03A (8 Jul 03) lieutenant colonel
selection boards. All of  the  PRFs  had  overall  recommendations  of
“Promote.”  The applicant wrote a letter to the CY02B promotion  board
indicating, in part, that  he  was  one  of  a  very  small  group  of
communications officers with direct combat operations  experience  but
his records consistently did not document his performance  because  of
classification constraints.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the rater is simply  letting  the  applicant  know
that her assessment was what she intended it to be at the time and she
has no valid reason to change her assessment  four  years  later.  The
rater’s use  of  the  word  “Promote”  in  the  May  02  email  is  an
inappropriate comment, according to AFI 36-2402. DPPPE  contends  that
pieces of the email cannot be taken and picked apart without reviewing
the entire email and what seems to be the intent of the  author.  Each
accomplishment  addressed  by  the  applicant  was   information   the
promotion board also had  available  for  review.  The  applicant  has
provided nothing to substantiate any of the allegations brought  forth
in his appeal. A report is not erroneous or unfair  because  a  member
believes it contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may  impact
future  opportunities.  The  rater  clearly  stands  by  her  original
assessment and the fact  that  the  applicant  was  not  selected  for
promotion does not make her assessment inaccurate, unjust, or  unfair.
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  advisory.  The
applicant’s record clearly does not warrant direct  promotion  or  SSB
consideration.  Regarding direct promotion, both Congress and DOD have
made clear their intent that when errors are perceived  to  ultimately
affect promotion, they should be addressed and  resolved  through  the
use of SSBs. DPPPO recommends denial  for  direct  promotion  and  SSB
consideration.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel strongly  disagrees  with  and  takes  exception  to  what  he
contends are the Air Force’s grossly incorrect assertions. In  stating
she could  have  strengthened  the  OPR  by  including  the  fact  the
applicant “was in the top 10% of my field graders,” the rater admitted
the contested report is an inaccurate reflection of  his  performance.
It is hardly surprising an officer who intentionally  weakens  an  OPR
will later refuse to admit her error. Any chance of  obtaining  relief
from willfully vindictive raters would  be  foreclosed  if  the  Board
relied simply on the rater’s refusal to endorse  a  corrected  OPR  as
evidence the contested report contains no  errors  or  injustices.  By
intentionally choosing highly prejudicial language in her  bottom-line
assessment, the rater undermined the applicant’s chances for promotion
to lieutenant colonel. The advisory author was  wrong  in  downplaying
the senior rater’s strong supporting statement and in  portraying  the
selection board’s decision as one based on  a  complete  and  accurate
record when, in  truth,  it  was  not.  The  Board  should  grant  the
applicant the relief requested.

A complete copy of counsel’s 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 to warrant voiding  the  contested
report and granting SSB consideration. After reviewing the  supporting
documentation, a majority of the Board is persuaded  the  embarrassing
incident inadvertently caused  by  the  applicant’s  family  may  have
tarnished the rater's assessment of his entire performance. While open
to interpretation, the rater’s 20 May 02 email appears to indicate she
deliberately weakened the 14 Aug 98 OPR.   We  cannot  determine  with
certainty whether she did this  because  she  sincerely  believed  the
applicant’s performance deserved this assessment or if she  was  being
vindictive because of the offense she was noted to have taken  at  the
tardy arrival of the applicant’s family.  Regardless,  to  offset  the
possibility of an injustice, the Board majority prefers to resolve any
doubt in this case in the applicant’s favor. Additionally,  the  CY01B
PRF senior  rater’s  statement  supports  correcting  the  applicant’s
record  to  improve   his   chances   for   a   “Definitely   Promote”
recommendation  and  selection  for  promotion.    We   cannot   state
categorically  that  the  OPR  was  the  cause  of   the   applicant’s
nonselection. However,  given  that  rater  bias  may  have  adversely
impacted the applicant’s promotion opportunities, the majority of  the
Board recommends the contested report be  declared  void  and  removed
from his records.

4.  The applicant's requests for eligibility for squadron command  and
direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel were not favorably
considered. Air Force authorities are in the best position  to  assess
the needs of the service and  the  qualifications  of  the  individual
concerned.  As for direct promotion,  it  is  our  understanding  that
officers compete for promotion under the whole person concept  whereby
many factors are carefully assessed by selection boards.   An  officer
may be qualified for promotion but, in the  judgment  of  a  selection
board vested with the discretionary authority to make the  selections,
may not be the best qualified  of  those  available  for  the  limited
number of promotion vacancies.  Therefore, absent  clear-cut  evidence
he would have been a selectee had his folder reflected the recommended
change, the Board majority believes a duly constituted selection board
applying the complete promotion criteria is in the  most  advantageous
position to render this vital determination, and its prerogative to do
so  should  only  be  usurped   under   extraordinary   circumstances.
Accordingly, the majority of  the  Board  recommends  the  applicant’s
corrected records be afforded SSB consideration.

5.    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  the  Field  Grade
Officer Performance Report (OPR),  AF  Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 15 August 1997 through 14 August 1998,  be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

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  2001B  (CY01B)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central  Selection
Board, and for any other selection board  for  which  the  OPR  was  a
matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 18 May 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended the records be corrected  as
indicated.  Ms. Willis voted to deny  and  has  submitted  a  Minority
Report at Exhibit G.  The following documentary evidence  relating  to
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00500 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 30 Mar 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Mar 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Apr 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 7 May 04.
   Exhibit G.  Minority Report.



                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2004-00500




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 Field Grade
Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the
period 15 August 1997 through 14 August 1998, be, and hereby is,
declared void and removed from his records.

      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 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection
Board, and for any other selection board for which the OPR was a
matter of record.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR BC-2004-00500

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  Minority Report on AFBCMR Application of


      In Executive Session on May 18, 2004, my colleagues voted to
void the applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing August
14, 1998, and granting him Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration
beginning with the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel
Central Selection Board.  Counsel asserted the rater held a grudge
against the applicant because she had been embarrassed and offended by
his family’s late arrival at a function over which she was presiding.
The majority of the Board was persuaded this incident prejudiced the
rater’s judgment of the applicant as evidenced, in part, by her May
20, 2002, email message (Exhibit A).

      The rater states in her email that the August 14, 1998, OPR “was
not erroneous” but “just not as strong as it could have been” [my
emphasis].  However, a careful reading of the rater’s statement in its
entirety and an objective review of the applicant’s record persuade me
that the contested OPR is not the result of rater bias.  Almost any
given performance evaluation could be made stronger; the point is
whether an evaluation should be made stronger.  I believe the rater
was explaining to the applicant that the contested OPR could have been
stronger, but his performance did not demonstrate that it should have
been.

      The rater also noted the applicant’s record was relatively weak
for about the first six or seven years and he lacked squadron command
experience. She pointed out the applicant’s Promotion Recommendation
Form (PRF) lacked stratification, as did the previous OPR, when the
applicant also served as an executive officer to an earlier rater.  In
addition to providing the applicant with reasons as to why his record
may not have been as competitive as others’ reviewed by the selection
board, the rater told him she had no clear evidence four years later
to indicate her evaluation of him in 1998 was inaccurate.

      The CY01B PRF senior rater supports strengthening or removing
the contested report, stating this would improve the applicant’s
chances for a “Definitely Promote” recommendation on his PRF and
selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  No one
disputes this action would enhance the applicant’s records.

      The AFBCMR plays a vital role in ensuring that our uniformed
members are treated fairly and justly. However, I find no compelling
basis to conclude that there was an error or an injustice or that the
contested OPR is biased and inaccurate.  Therefore, I strongly believe
there are no grounds for voiding the August 14, 1998, report.  The
mere fact that the report may have led to his nonselection is
insufficient justification for enhancing or removing it.
Consequently, I recommend the Board majority’s recommendation to grant
this appeal be overturned.




                             CAROLYN BEAN WILLIS
                             Board Member