RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00653
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  28 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered  for  the  periods  31
August 1995 through 11 August 1996 and 12 August 1996 through 30 April
1997, be declared void and removed from his records and his  corrected
record be considered by Special Selection Boards (SSBs).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes the record to be unjust due to a substantial  professional
error in judgment on the part of the endorsing  official  of  the  two
Field Grade Officer Performance Reports in question.  The rank/name of
the endorsing individual on those reports was (then) Colonel D--- D---
.   He  fully  realizes  that  his  request  is  going  to  be  viewed
cautiously.   He  acknowledges  this  and  can  only  relay   to   the
individuals making  this  decision  that  he  continues  to  take  his
personal integrity very seriously and would not be making this request
if it did not have merit.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits an Addendum, a copy of his
DD Form 214, a copy of his Meritorious Service Medal, a  copy  of  his
performance reports, a Biography of Brigadier General D---, and a copy
of a CBS News story.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 June 1983, the applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant and
entered extended active duty.

The applicant was considered and not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A (19 April  1999),  CY99B  (30
November 1999) and CY00A (28 November 2000) Lieutenant Colonel Central
Selection Boards.

OPR profile since 1990, follows:

       PERIOD ENDING             EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         30 Apr 90       Meets Standards (MS)
         30 Apr 91             MS
         30 Apr 92             MS
          8 Mar 93             MS
         20 Sep 94       Education/Training Report (TR)
         30 Aug 95             MS
        *11 Aug 96             MS
        *30 Apr 97             MS
         30 Apr 98             MS
         30 Apr 99             MS
         30 Apr 00             MS

*Contested Reports

Effective 1 August 2001, the applicant retired in the grade of  major.
He had served 21 years, 4 months and 4 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP states that while it is appropriate to make  recommendations
for a particular  assignment,  PME,  continuation,  etc…they  are  not
mandatory and a failure to make such a recommendation  does  not  make
the report in itself  inaccurate  or  unjust.   In  reference  to  the
applicant’s statement that on his 1997 OPR his additional  rater  made
lukewarm command and PME recommendations, and  also  left  significant
blank space on the last line of the endorsement,  DPPP  states  again,
these recommendations  are  not  mandatory,  and  the  fact  that  the
applicant feels his recommendations as written were  lukewarm  is  his
own personal opinion and is somewhat of a moot point since he was  not
charged with assessing/writing his own performance  report.   Further,
while there was an amount of blank space  left  on  the  1997  report,
nothing prohibits evaluators from not  filling  out  a  block  in  its
entirety.   A  report  is  considered  an  accurate  assessment   when
rendered; therefore, substantial evidence is required to  challenge  a
report’s accuracy.  Therefore, they recommend  denial  of  applicant’s
request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provided a statement saying that he would like to ensure
that the Board understands it is his position that  the  documentation
was a result of substantial professional error in judgment on the part
of the additional rater.  He also strongly agrees with DPPP in that it
was absolutely appropriate for raters and additional  raters  to  make
such comments at the time of these reports.  In fact, it was  standard
practice to the point that if they  were  missing,  it  sent  a  clear
negative signal regarding promotion potential.  He states, while  DPPP
has discussed the accuracy of  the  reports,  they  have  clearly  not
addressed his primary claim that the reports were unjust.   He  argues
this omission is veiled support for his claim.  He stated the  reports
were unjust due to the substantial professional error in  judgment  on
the part of the additional rater who was subsequently promoted,  given
significant additional responsibility, and put on a  clearly  visible,
highly publicized accident investigation board.   Yet,  AFPC  remained
mum on this critical component and decided not to address his  primary
claim.  He contends that,  in  a  way  that  was  possible,  AFPC  has
supported his claim by not addressing the primary issue he raises.  He
respectfully asks the Board to review his record of  performance  both
before and after having Colonel D--- as his additional rater.   He  is
cautiously encouraged by the HQ AFPC response and again asks the Board
to remove the two unjust OPRs from his record.

Applicant provided a letter dated 24 July 2005, saying he desires to
meet a special selection board if his application is approved.

Applicant's response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence
provided, we are not persuaded the contested  reports  are  inaccurate
depictions of the applicant’s performance and  demonstrated  potential
for the periods in question.  In the rating process, each evaluator is
required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best  of
their ability.  The applicant asserts the comments of  the  additional
rater of the contested reports did not accurately portray his value to
the service and that this officer’s judgment was questionable based on
other matters not related to the rendition of his reports.  Regardless
of the applicant’s opinion as to how the  additional  rater  performed
other duties during the course of  his  career,  he  has  provided  no
evidence that would lead us to believe these issues had any bearing on
the additional rater’s ability to fairly  and  accurately  assess  and
report on the applicant’s performance and  potential.   Therefore,  we
agree with opinions and recommendations of the  Air  Force  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 December 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                       Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
                       Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2005-00653 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Feb 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Apr 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 26 May 05 and Letter
                 dated 24 Jul 05.




                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                             Chair