RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00395
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 6 AUG 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 8 Jun 03
through 4 Jun 04 be removed from her records and she be given Special
Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 2004A
(CY04A) Colonel Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her rater failed to comply with AFIs 36-2406 and 36-2501 and inform
her of changes in her performance that would adversely impact her
evaluation. She was led to believe that her performance was equal to
or better than the previous years. Contrary to what the rater alleges
in an email, she does not recall a spring feedback session. While she
understands not everyone can be rated as a #1 or a “Definitely Promote
(DP),” she does not understand why she was not stratified as she was
last year. This is a negative report and any rational person would
wonder what happened. The same rater who rated her as his number one
squadron commander on the previous OPR rendered the contested report.
The rater provided an email indicating the applicant’s performance was
exceptional, that he did discuss issues and concerns with her during
spring feedback, the OPR was not intended to be negative, he did not
feel it appropriate to provide the same stratification on the second
year, and he based his judgment on the performance of all the squadron
commanders he supervised. 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 lieutenant colonel (LTC), with a date of rank of 1 Jan 00.
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the
grade of colonel by the CY04A selection board, which convened on 6 Dec
04. The overall recommendation on her Promotion Recommendation Form
(PRF) was “Promote.”
OPR profile since 1995 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
1 Aug 95 Meets Standards
12 Jun 96 Meets Standards
12 Jun 97 Training Report
12 Jun 98 Meets Standards
12 Jun 99 Meets Standards
17 Sep 99 Training Report
12 Jun 00 Meets Standards
7 Jun 01 Meets Standards
7 Jun 02 Meets Standards
* 7 Jun 03 Meets Standards
**4 Jun 04 Meets Standards
* Rater stratification: “My number one Sq CC”; additional rater
stratification: “My #1 of 17 Sq/CCs”
** Contested report; top report for CY04A selection board; no
stratification; same rater but different additional
rater from 7 Jun 03 OPR; reflects feedback was
accomplished on 15 Dec 03.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes that since the applicant’s “documented” feedback
was in Dec 03 and her OPR closed out in Jun 04, it was understandable
the rater did not do a “formal” (written) feedback but rather an
“informal” (talking) feedback to let the member know his concerns.
There are only six months between the last feedback and the closeout
date of the OPR. Therefore, a “formal” feedback would not have been
required. If an evaluator discovers serious problems, he/she must
record or take into consideration the problems in the evaluation
report even when it disagrees with the previous positive feedback.
Stratification is optional in a report. Since its inclusion is not
mandatory, its omission does not make the report inaccurate. The
applicant must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on its
content. Denial is recommended and SSB consideration is unwarranted.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In an initial response, dated 31 Mar 05, the applicant provided copies
of all her OPRs to compare against the contested evaluation. The
applicant asserted her integrity compelled her to include the rater’s
email, although she believed it does not help her case. She hoped [HQ
AFPC/DPPPE] would notice the rater reported a feedback session in
spring of 2004, check Section VI of the OPR and see he certified the
latest session was Dec 03, recognize the disparity between his remarks
in the email and the contested report, and rule in her favor. While
stratification is not a required part of the rating process, once
applied, precedence is established and failure to continue it in
future reports indicates a decline in performance. This is especially
true if the rater is the same. If her performance had deteriorated,
the rater did a disservice to his successor by not passing on his
concerns. If the rater truly believed she did not need a strong OPR
to successfully compete, then his “judgment call” was disastrous for
her.
The applicant requested time to submit further evidence and, in a
second response dated 21 Jun 05, provided additional comments, copies
of all her OPRs, and a supporting statement from a colonel at HQ
PACAF/SC, who was not a member of her rating chain. The applicant
asserts that, contrary to the rater’s email, there was no feedback
session conducted in the spring of 2004 at all. She initiated several
conversations with the rater regarding her thyroid condition, which
the Elmendorf AFB hospital was having difficulty controlling. She
felt a need to keep the rater apprised; however, being a commander,
she could never let herself become overweight for whatever reason and
cut back on her food intake and exercised. Her medical condition
never interfered with her duty performance and, to the extent the
rater implies that it did, he is mistaken. She describes three of her
major achievements during the rating period and reiterates comments
made in her earlier rebuttal. The rater’s argument that he was
evaluating other commanders is without merit since all but one of the
commanders arrived at the same time and were evaluated together the
previous year. His failure to stratify her was not based on duty
performance or fairness. She speculates on what may have motivated
the rater not to stratify her this time, i.e., a deliberate and
malicious attempt to prevent her from advancing to the rank of
colonel. She points out the recommendation on the PRF indicates he
apparently changed his mind between the time he signed the OPR and the
PRF.
The HQ PACAF/SC colonel indicates he was very familiar with the
performance of all communications squadrons, and observed the
applicant performing effectively as a commander. He concludes the
applicant was a top-tier leader.
Complete copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at
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 a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded she should be afforded SSB consideration for the CY04A
Colonel Selection Board with the 4 Jun 04 OPR removed from her
records. We concede the contested report, without stratification,
could be perceived as weaker than previous OPRs which stratified the
applicant. However, neither this lack of stratification nor the
alleged lack of feedback inherently invalidates the rating chain’s
assessment of the applicant’s performance and potential for the rating
period ending 4 Jun 04. The applicant offers several speculations as
to why the rater failed to include stratification in the contested
OPR, but these assertions are essentially uncorroborated by any
persuasive evidence. The letter from the HQ PACAF/SC colonel was
noted; however, he was not a member of the applicant’s rating chain
and his opinion of her performance has not overcome that of her
evaluators. More helpful would have been input from the additional
rater, who concurred with the rater’s assessment on the contested OPR
while including a stratification comment on the CY04A PRF. In
conclusion, although the applicant may have been fully qualified,
promotion to colonel is extremely competitive based, in part, on the
limited available positions. She has not established, to our
satisfaction, that her record was the best qualified when considered
by the CY04A board or that the contested OPR was erroneous and
unjustly impacted her promotion opportunity. In view of the above and
absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the applicant has not
sustained her burden of having suffered either an error or an
injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
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 issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 14 July 2005 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00395 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.
Exhibit E. Letters, Applicant, dated 31 Mar & 21 Jun 05,
w/atchs.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01686
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01686 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPR) for the periods 1 Mar 02 through 28 Feb 03 and 1 Mar 03 through 2 Jul 03 be modified by adding command push and professional military...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00395A
The overall recommendation on her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was “Promote.” On 14 Jul 05, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request for voidance of her 4 Jun 04 OPR and consideration by an SSB for the CY04A selection board. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. The applicant has provided additional evidence showing she did...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02220
The applicant contends her OPR closing 31 January 2004 should have been in her OSR prepared for the CY04A Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and the performance feedback date (8 October 2003) in section VI, of the same contested OPR is incorrect. However, it is noted this PFW was from the previous reporting period and given by a different rater who was not in the rating chain at the time of the 31 January 2004 OPR. The applicant provided no documents or letters from the rating chain...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02524-2
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of his original PRF for the CY04A board; new endorsed PRF; a copy of the Management-Level Review letter of concurrence, dated 25 Apr 06; a copy of AFBCMR Recommendation, dated 9 Mar 06, and an extract from the AFI 36-2401, para A1.6., dated 20 Feb 04, Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00021
Applicant failed to provide supporting evidence to prove the report is inaccurate or was completed with any form of bias. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant, the Board majority believes that some doubt has been presented regarding a push for a group command assignment in the PRF submitted for the CY04A Colonel Central Selection Board. Therefore, the majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s PRF for the CY04A Colonel Central...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01997 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Apr 04 through 31 Aug 04 be declared void and removed from his records, and the attached reaccomplished OPR be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02524
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02524 INDEX NUMBER: 111.00, 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 MAR 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Mar 03 through 19 Mar 04, be removed from his records and he be considered for promotion to the...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03320
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not by itself invalidate an EPR.” While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Accordingly, if a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater, where the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02441
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02441 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: EUGENE R. FIDELL XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JANUARY 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected by removing the references to her excessive work on her Calendar Year (CY) 02B (2 Dec 02) (P0602B) Colonel Central Selection...