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