RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00821
(Case 2)
INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period
11 September 2000 through 10 September 2001, be replaced with the
revised OPR he provided, reflecting the words “squadron command
equivalent” in Section III, Block 2.
He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2001B (5 November
2001) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, with the corrected
OPR.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His duty status was not accurately seen by the CY01B selection board
as being a squadron commander equivalent, since Section I, Block 8, of
the contested OPR identified his duty status as only a flight
commander. He believes the misinterpretation of his duty status
resulted in his nonselection for promotion to lieutenant colonel.
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement,
copies of the contested and revised OPRs, statements from his rating
chain and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his
contentions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
6 December 1985. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade
of major, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 January 1998.
The following is a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his
promotion to that grade.
Period Ending Evaluation
30 Jun 98 Meets Standards (MS)
28 Feb 99 MS
28 Feb 00 MS
10 Sep 00 MS
#* 10 Sep 01 MS
## 6 Aug 02 MS
### 8 Apr 03 MS
8 Apr 04 MS
* Contested OPR
# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel
Central Board, which convened on 5 November 2001.
## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel
Central Board, which convened on 12 November 2002.
### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY03A Lieutenant Colonel
Central Board, which convened on 8 July 2003.
A similar appeal by the applicant, under Air Force Instruction (AFI)
36-2401, was considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 27 October 2003.
In 2003, applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records (AFBCMR) for replacement of his Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY01B (P0501B) Lieutenant Colonel
Central Selection Board with a revised PRF and Special Selection Board
(SSB) consideration. His application was denied by the Board on
9 July 2003.
Information maintained in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals that the applicant currently has an established date of
separation of 31 December 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE, recommends the application be denied. DPPPE states
that the contested OPR clearly identifies the applicant’s duties as
being equivalent to those of any squadron commander. His Duty Air
Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of C65F3 clearly has the “C” commander
prefix and his duty title clearly states “commander.” The first
bullet in Section VI clearly refers to the applicant as a “unit
commander.” In the evaluators overall assessments, they clearly
suggest that the applicant was serving as a commander at that time and
upon completion of his current tour, he should be selected for a
larger command position. The Air Force views evaluation reports as
most accurate when written and become a matter of record. There are
no errors or injustices cited in the contested OPR. Retrospective
views of evaluators, based on nonselect counseling, does not
constitute an avenue for rewriting and reconsideration of the member’s
performance records. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPO reviewed HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory regarding the
applicant’s request to substitute his 10 September 2001 OPR and have
nothing further to add. Since DPPPE recommend denial, SSB
consideration is not warranted. The HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with
attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the
circumstances, which triggered discovery of the error, do not
invalidate the fact that an error actually occurred requiring
correction of the contested OPR. HQ AFPC/DPPPE restated the ERAB
decision in their advisory opinion. The ERAB decision, although
clearly reaching an unfavorable conclusion, supports his position.
The only method a promotion board could take to determine his position
was equivalent to a squadron commander would be to know that the
duties are commensurate with those of a squadron commander. During a
promotion board, with just minutes to review a record, the board
member is likely to simply draw the conclusion that his status was
flight commander without stopping to equate the duties to that of a
squadron commander. The simple addition of the words squadron command
equivalent would significantly reduce the likelihood of
misinterpretation and increase the ability of the board to score the
record more fairly/equally. HQ AFPC/DPPPE made its most flagrant
error when they referred to a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)
containing a statement that he was selected as “USAFE Comptroller
Squadron Commander of the year for 2001….” The USAFE award, although
earned, was not announced in time to be included in the PRF or the
OPR. The PRF from the P0501B selection board was not part of his
application package, is not part of the official personnel record, and
does not seem relevant to this issue. The intent of the rater and
senior rater, at the time the report was written, was to reflect his
duty status as squadron commander. This request before the AFBCMR is
not to alter their view based on a retrospective opinion, but to
clarify duty status that was inadvertently/unintentionally left
unclear and open to unjust misinterpretation. The applicant’s
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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, including the
statements from the rating chain, the Board majority is unpersuaded
that the contested report should be altered. In this respect, the
Board majority noted the new policy redesignating the comptroller
flight in question to a “squadron” was approved subsequent to the
contested report becoming a matter of record. Inasmuch as the other
12 remaining comptroller flight units were redesignated to comptroller
squadrons during this same time period, the Board majority finds no
evidence showing the applicant was inequitably treated in comparison
to similarly situated officers. Additionally, the Board majority
views the statements by the rating chain, so long after the closeout
of the report, as retrospective assessments, written as well-meaning
after-the-fact attempts to enhance the applicant’s promotability.
Such motivations are not sufficient to support findings that the
reports themselves are erroneous or unjust. In view of the above, and
in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a determination that
the applicant’s record before the duly constituted selection board was
unable to make a reasonable determination concerning his promotability
in relation to his peers, the Board majority finds no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Panel Chair
Ms. Deborah A. Erickson, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
By a majority vote, Ms. Erickson and Ms. Hassan voted to deny
applicant's request. Mr. Parker voted to grant the applicant's
request but did not desire to submit a minority report. The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2004-00821.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Apr 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 25 May 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
Exhibit F. Letters from Applicant, dated 9 Jun 04, w/atchs.
EDWARD H. PARKER
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-00821
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00500
_________________________________________________________________ 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. Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 7 May 04. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-2004-00500 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02883 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations on his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 19 Mar 94 and 25 Nov 94, be changed from Intermediate Service School (ISS) to Senior Service School (SSS). The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02389
His senior rater at the time was responsible for providing promotion recommendations to the selection board. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting correction to the applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and Officer Selection Record (OSR) and Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. It is further recommended that the applicant’s corrected record be considered for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03639
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03639 INDEX CODE: 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 April 1999 through 31 March 2000 be removed from his records; Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00246
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As a squadron commander, he received an OPR that was inconsistent with prior evaluation due to a personality conflict with the wing commander and lack of feedback from the logistics group commander. The additional rater of the contested report was also the additional rater for the previous OPR closing 16 Mar 00. He also indicated he received no performance feedback.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01200
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01200 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 11 April 1998 through 10 April 1999 be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03931
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03931 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The duty title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 17 May 01 through 16 May 02, be corrected to read “Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight Commander” rather than “Bioenvironmental Engineer”; and, that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01704
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01704 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY01B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (P0501B), with the corrected assignment history on his Officer Selection...
In support of his appeal, the applicant submitted a revised PRF as well as a copy of a letter sent to his Management Level Review president by his Senior Rater requesting that the revised PRF be substituted for the original PRF and the applicant meet an SSB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation...