RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00511
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 Aug 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) be substituted  with
corrected reports:

        a.  Report rendered for the period 21 Jun 00 through  29  Sep
01.

        b.  Report rendered for the period 30 Sep 01 through  29  Sep
02.

        c.  Report rendered for the period 30 Sep 02 through  31  May
03.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  by
special selection  board  (SSB)  for  the  CY04B  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board with the corrected record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His raters rewrote the last bullets in sections VI and first and last
bullets in section VII on the contested  OPRs  after  realizing  that
they  did  not  reflect  the  proper  Air   Force   terminology   for
stratification and push for professional  military  education  (PME).
Both the rater and additional rater have Army backgrounds and had  no
Air Force guidance as to the correct usage of Air  Force  phraseology
and necessity for stratification.  He did not catch the errors due to
a heavy TDY schedule and because of his wife’s serious illness.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a statement  of  support
from the Under Secretary of Defense and a copy of the  appeal  denied
by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on  9  May  89.   He  is  presently
serving on active duty in the grade of major.  He was considered  and
not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by  the
CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  A  resume  of  his
last ten Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) reflects overall  ratings
of “Meets Standards.”
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommends  denial  of  the   applicant’s   requests   to
substitute new reports  for  the  three  contested  reports  and  for
promotion consideration by SSB.

The applicant’s OPR closing 29 Sep 01 did  contain  a  recommendation
for  Intermediate  Service  School.   While   this   is   a   general
recommendation, it is still accurate.  The  replacement  OPR  made  a
specific recommendation for  “Army  Staff  College.”   The  OPR  also
contained  a  general  recommendation  for   the   applicant’s   next
assignment while the replacement OPR made a  specific  recommendation
for “squadron commander.”  Stratification was not  mentioned  in  the
original OPR and is not a mandatory requirement.

The OPR closing 29 Sep 02 also contained general recommendations  for
PME and command.  While general,  the  recommendations  are  correct.
The original report did not contain any comments on stratification.

The OPR closing 31 May 03 did not contain a recommendation  for  PME.
However, this is an optional statement.  The OPR did contain comments
regarding future assignments.

Although the  applicant’s  rating  chain  has  expressed  support  of
rewriting the contested OPRs, it would be unfair to other  Air  Force
officers to allow substitution of the applicant’s OPRs because he was
not selected for promotion.  The applicant clearly failed to exercise
reasonable   diligence   in   maintaining   his   records.    Reports
accomplished by another branch of service where the  final  evaluator
is not an Air Force officer or Department of the Air  Force  official
requires the use of  an  Air  Force  advisor  to  advise  on  matters
pertaining to Air Force performance reports.  An  Air  Force  advisor
was used on all of the applicant’s reports.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responds to the Air Force evaluation in two  separately
prepared letters.  In his response to the Air Force evaluations,  the
applicant reiterates the statements made  by  his  rater  and  senior
rater regarding the lack of guidance they received on  preparing  his
OPR. He notes that his rater on the contested OPRs wrote in a 22  Nov
04 [sic] letter that as an Army officer,  “She  was  unaware  of  the
importance of Air  Force  OPR  statements  required  for  promotion.”
Further, that she had “asked DIA” for an Air Force advisor per AFI 36-
2406, paragraph 3.10.1, but was never provided  one.   The  applicant
also notes that his senior rater also said in a letter, dated  3  Dec
04,  he  was  not  provided  with  guidance  on  the  importance   of
stratification and PME statements in Air Force OPRs.

Applicant reemphasizes that he was TDY  most  of  the  time  and  was
unable to advise his rater on how to write his  OPR.   The  applicant
asserts that PME push and stratification are necessary in  Air  Force
OPRs in order to make the case for promotion and that both his  rater
and senior rater needed to know  this  information.   He  notes  that
their willingness to rewrite his OPRs reflects their deep  desire  to
accurately convey the truth concerning his performance.

The applicant indicates he is aware of his responsibility  to  review
his records prior to a Central Selection Board, but he had extraneous
circumstances that hindered him from doing so.  The applicant  states
he is appealing to the AFBCMR  because  he  believes  he  deserves  a
chance to correct an unintentional injustice.

In his second letter, applicant provides a  detailed  explanation  of
why his OPRs do not meet the standards required in effective OPRs and
do not fully reflect the intent of his rater and senior  rater.   The
applicant concludes that the problems with his  OPRs  are  due  to  a
“negligent Air Force advisor program” that didn’t provide  his  rater
and senior rater with assistance or advice.

The applicant’s complete responses, with attachment, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We  note  the  support
provided to the applicant  by  his  rating  chain.   Since  both  the
applicant’s rater and senior rater have  indicated  they  would  have
written the contested OPRs differently had they been aware of  unique
Air Force requirements on “PME push” and stratification, the majority
of the Board believes that to deny  the  applicant’s  requests  would
serve to undermine the critical role of the rating chain in  insuring
fair and equitable promotion consideration.  As  such,  the  majority
believes this would constitute a clear injustice  to  the  applicant.
While it does appear there was a lack of diligence on the applicant’s
part in advising his raters of the requirements for competitive OPRs,
the majority of the Board will accord him the benefit  of  the  doubt
regarding the reasons he states  he  was  precluded  from  doing  so.
Therefore in the interest of equity and justice, the majority of  the
Board recommends the applicant’s records be  corrected  as  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

        a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A,
rendered on him for the period  21  Jun  00  through  29  Sep  01  be
substituted with the attached revised OPR,  which  reads  in  Section
VII, line one, “My #1/12 AF Attaché’s in Sub-Saharan Africa,  head  &
shoulders above the rest--outstanding leader/pilot.”

        b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A,
rendered on him for the period  30  Sep  01  through  29  Sep  02  be
substituted with the attached revised OPR,  which  reads  in  Section
VII,  line  five,  “#1  of  12  AF  Africa  experts,   respected   by
Ambassadors, Intel analysts--vast talent--ISS & SQ Cmd now.”

        c.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A,
rendered on him for the period  30  Sep  02  through  31  May  03  be
substituted with the attached revised OPR,  which  reads  in  Section
VII,  line  five,  “#1/40  flying  Attaches  in  Def  Attache   Sys--
Unflappable “can-do” attitude; send to ISS then SQ Cmd.”

It is further  recommended  that  the  applicant  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  special  selection
board (SSB) for the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection  Board
with the above substituted reports accepted for file in his OSR.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 20 April 2005, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

By  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records  as
recommended.  Ms. White-Olson voted to deny the  applicant’s  appeal,
but  elected  not  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The   following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 8 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 05.




                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-00511


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report,  AF  Form
707A, rendered on him for the period 21 Jun 00 through 29 Sep  01  be
substituted with the attached revised OPR,  which  reads  in  Section
VII, line one, “My #1/12 AF Attaché’s in Sub-Saharan Africa,  head  &
shoulders above the rest--outstanding leader/pilot.”

            b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report,  AF  Form
707A, rendered on him for the period 30 Sep 01 through 29 Sep  02  be
substituted with the attached revised OPR,  which  reads  in  Section
VII,  line  five,  “#1  of  12  AF  Africa  experts,   respected   by
Ambassadors, Intel analysts--vast talent--ISS & SQ Cmd now.”

            c.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report,  AF  Form
707A, rendered on him for the period 30 Sep 02 through 31 May  03  be
substituted with the attached revised OPR,  which  reads  in  Section
VII,  line  five,  “#1/40  flying  Attaches  in  Def  Attaché   Sys--
Unflappable “can-do” attitude; send to ISS then SQ Cmd.”

      It is further directed that the applicant be considered for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection
board (SSB) for the CY04B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection
Board with the above substituted reports accepted for file in his
OSR.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency

3 Attachments:
1.  Revised OPR closing 29 Sep 01
2.  Revised OPR closing 29 Sep 02
3.  Revised OPR closing 31 May 03