RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02726
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending  21 May
2001 be replaced with a reaccomplished report.

2.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel
by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the  Calendar  Year  (CY)  2002
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR in question does not contain the information  that  his  rater
intended for it to contain.  His rater stated he  did  not  intend  to
make any omissions that would convey a negative message and  it  would
be unjust for the current OPR to stand.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY02B lieutenant colonel CSB.

The applicant appealed the contested report under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.  The
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the  applicant's  appeal
because they  believe  the  evidence  does  not  support  the  rater’s
contention that he  intended  at  the  time  to  remove  any  negative
information.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                   21 May 99      Meets Standards
                   21 May 00      Meets Standards
                  *21 May 01      Meets Standards
                    9 May 02      AF Form 475
                    9 May 03      Meets Standards
                    9 May 04      Meets Standards

*Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant’s rater provided  a  reaccomplished
report to replace the contested report.  His rater stated he initially
wrote the report with negative  information,  however,  after  meeting
with the applicant and clearing up a misconception chose to remove any
negative connotations from the  report.   However,  nothing  has  been
provided to prove the contested report was unjust based on the content
as initially written.  The applicant  now  after  two  years  and  the
convening of the CSB, seeks replacement of the report.   HQ  AFPC/DPPE
further states there are a series of items the rater now  contends  he
accidentally failed to fix after  the  meeting  between  him  and  the
applicant.  It is difficult to conceive the rater inadvertently failed
to fix all the intended  corrections  of  the  contested  report.   HQ
AFPC/DPPPE believes the report was written and submitted  as  intended
and the rater now after the applicant’s nonselection for promotion has
a retrospective view of the events; which is not grounds to allow  the
report to be corrected at this  point.   A  request  based  solely  on
willingness by evaluators to  change  reports  after  nonselection  of
promotion should not be favorably considered unless it is  proved  the
report was erroneous or unjust based on content.  They  recommend  the
requested relief be denied.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the applicant’s request to  have  his  21 May
2001 OPR replaced be denied.  They further state SSB consideration  is
not warranted.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
29 October 2004, for  review  and  response.   As  of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

On 14 December 2004, the  applicant  requested  SSB  consideration  be
included in his application for correction of records Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record, the Board majority is  unpersuaded  the  requested
relief should be granted.  Applicant's  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, the Board majority does not find these assertions, in and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant  contends  his  rater,
due to a misunderstanding, did not accurately reflect his  performance
on his 21 May 2001 OPR.  The applicant  provides  a  letter  from  his
rater attesting that he initially wrote the report to appear negative,
but after discussing the situation with the applicant, chose to remove
any negative information from the report; however, during the  rewrite
of the  report,  he  failed  to  fill  in  any  white  space,  make  a
stratification statement, or make an SJA  recommendation.   The  Board
majority finds it difficult to conceive the rater inadvertently failed
to correct these items in his rewrite of the OPR.  While the  majority
has no reason to doubt  the  rater’s  sincerity,  the  Board  majority
believes the rater’s initial statement that he intended for the report
to have a negative connotation more accurately reflects his perception
of the applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested  time  period.
Likewise, the majority notes the statement from the additional  rater,
but again we are not persuaded the contested report is  inaccurate  as
written.  Furthermore,  the  applicant  has  not  provided  persuasive
evidence the report was erroneous or unjust based on  the  content  as
written.  Therefore, based on evidence provided,  the  Board  majority
finds no  compelling  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the
requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02726 in Executive Session on 16 and 27 December 2004, under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
                       Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Looney voted to grant, but she does not wish to submit a  Minority
Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 04, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant’s Officer Selection Brief
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE & HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated
                       20 Oct 04.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 04.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s addendum to DD Form 149,
                       Dated 14 Dec 04.




                             RITA S. LOONEY
                             Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                       CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Case of


      I have carefully considered all of the circumstances of this
case and do not agree with the majority of the AFBCMR panel that the
applicant’s requests for substitution of an Officer Performance Report
(OPR) for the period 22 May 2000 through 21 May 2001 containing a
stratification statement and an assignment recommendation and
reconsideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2002
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board should be denied.

      The applicant was assigned as the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate
for the 305th Air Mobility Wing from May 1999 through May 2001.  The
applicant contends his rater, as a result of a misunderstanding,
prepared a draft report covering the contested time period to convey
negative information about his perception of a situation which
occurred in January 2001.  It appears the rater thought the applicant
refused to go on temporary duty (TDY) to Pope AFB in January 2001.
However, after discussing the situation with the applicant, the rater
realized his perception of the event was incorrect and decided to
revise the draft version of the OPR which, when finalized, is the
contested report under review.  According to the rater, when he
revised the draft OPR to remove any negative connotations, he failed
to remove/fill-in the white space, make a stratification statement,
and a staff judge advocate (SJA) recommendation.  In his letter, the
rater states he did not realize the implications of the omissions and
that he did not intend to make any of those omissions and convey such
a message.  He further states he believes it would be unjust for the
contested OPR to stand.  The rater presented the reaccomplished OPR to
the additional rater who concurred the contested OPR should be
reaccomplished.


      After reviewing the statements from the applicant and the rating
chain, I am persuaded the contested report does not reflect an
accurate assessment of the applicant’s duty performance during the
contested time period.  The applicant’s rating chain agrees the
reaccomplished report better reflects his work performance for that
time period.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of a basis
to question the integrity of the rater and additional rater, the
benefit of any doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor.
Therefore, I am persuaded the reaccomplished report more accurately
reflects the applicant’s accomplishments during the contested time
period.  Accordingly, it is my decision that his requests for
substitution of the OPR containing a stratification statement and an
assignment recommendation and reconsideration for promotion to
lieutenant colonel by all selection boards that the original report
were a matter of record be approved.





                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency



AFBCMR BC-2004-02726



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 22 May 2000 through 21 May 2001, be, and
hereby is declared void and removed from his records.

            b.   The attached reaccomplished Field Grade Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 22 May 2000
through 22 May 2001, indicating in Section VI,
“ - A++ officer/judge advocate. In resident SSS and follow-on assignment as
a Staff Judge Advocate a must!” be accepted for file in its proper
sequence.

            c.   The attached reaacomplished OPR be amended in the date
blocks of Sections VI and VII by adding the dates 22 May 2001 and 5 July
2001, respectively.

      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 2002B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and for any subsequent boards
for which the OPR was a matter of record.




                             JOE G. LINEBERGER
                             Director
                             Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Reaccomplished OPR