RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02191
            INDEX CODE: 131.01, 111.01, 111.05
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Jan 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Original Request (Exhibit A):
      He be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  for
the Calendar Year  2002B  (CY02B)  Lieutenant  Colonel  (LTC)  Central
Selection Board (CSB) with the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and
the Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 17 Feb 01  through
16 Feb 02 voided from his record.

Amended Request (Exhibit F):
      He be directly promoted to the grade of LTC as  if  selected  by
either the CY01B or CY02B CSBs, or be considered  by  SSBs  for  those
boards.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Both documents are invalid as they were prepared in violation  of  AFI
36-2406.   The  senior  rater,  Col  B--,  failed   to   fulfill   his
responsibility in that he intentionally, as a result of personal bias,
provided a PRF he knew to be an inadequate and  inaccurate  assessment
of his [the applicant’s] promotion potential. He prepared his own  PRF
for his second below-the-promotion-zone consideration by the CY01B LTC
CSB.  Col B-- copied that CY01B PRF, substituted two bullets from  the
contested OPR, and resubmitted it as the PRF for the CY02B  CSB.   The
contested PRF does not contain a valid promotion potential  assessment
and it is impossible to correct due to Col B--’s  refusal  to  do  so.
Further, it was inappropriate for Col B--, who was both his rater  and
senior rater, to provide his official record  to  others  not  in  his
chain of command for review and advice on how they compared him to his
contemporaries.  He received the PRF only nine days before  the  board
met.  Col B-- required him to write the contested OPR, which  was  the
top report reviewed by the selection board and which provided the  two
“kiss of death” bullets for the CY02B PRF.   Approving  a  request  to
void an unfair PRF cannot be contingent on a  senior  rater’s  support
when he is the one whose intention or profound neglect resulted in  it
being unfair  or  defective  in  the  first  place.   He  contends  he
discussed this issue with the Management Level Review (MLR) president,
who indicated he was sympathetic but reluctant to challenge  a  senior
rater when he had not worked with [the applicant] that closely.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  emails  to/from  his
senior rater, a statement from the senior rater, an email from the  HQ
AFPC nonselection counselor, drafts  of  the  OPR,  and  his  previous
appeals to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). [Note:  In  the
senior rater’s statement (Exhibit A), he indicated the only change  he
would make to the CY02B PRF would be to add the word “Promote” in  the
last line.  However, the senior rater would have to decide what  words
to change/eliminate because there is insufficient  room  on  the  last
line to fit “Promote.”]  The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was considered below-the-promotion-zone  (BPZ)  but  not
selected for promotion to the grade of LTC by the  CY01B  board.   The
PRF  for  this  board  had  an  overall  promotion  recommendation  of
“Promote.”

During the period in question, the applicant was the executive officer
with the USTRANSCOM Intelligence Directorate (ELM) at Scott AFB, IL.

The applicant was considered in/above-the-promotion-zone  (I/APZ)  but
not selected for promotion to the grade of LTC by  the  CY02B  (12 Nov
02)  and  the  CY03A  (8 Jul  03)  CSBs.  Both  PRFs   had   promotion
recommendations of “Promote.”  The first seven lines in Section IV  of
both the CY01B and CY02B PRFs are the same.  The last line in  Section
IV of the CY02B PRF is the same as the last line in Section VI of  the
16 Feb 02 OPR.

Col B-- was the senior rater of the CY01B PRF and the contested  CY02B
PRF, as well as the rater of the contested 16 Feb 02 OPR.

The applicant filed similar appeals under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2401; however, the ERAB denied  his  applications  on  30 Jul  03  and
31 Mar 04.

The applicant was also not selected for promotion to the grade of  LTC
by the CY04B (12 Jun 04), CY05A (6 Jul  05),  and  CY06A  (13 Mar  06)
CSBs.  The PRFs all had promotion recommendations of “Promote.”

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major and has a mandatory retirement date of 1 Dec 06.

An OPR profile since 2000 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING               EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
        26 Feb 00                       Meets Standards (MS)
        16 Feb 01                       MS
       *16 Feb 02                       MS (CY02B Top Report)
        14 May 03                       MS (CY03A Top Report)
        14 May 04                       MS (CY04B Top Report)
        14 May 05                       MS (CY05A & CY06A Top Report)
        14 May 06                       MS

*Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  The applicant  states  he  prepared
the contested PRF and  OPR;  he  himself  violated  AFI  36-2406.   He
provided nothing documenting Col B-- directed him to complete his  own
PRF or OPR.  The senior rater is responsible for  completing  the  PRF
but may consider input from subordinate supervisors  on  an  officer’s
most recent duty performance and performance-based potential, as  well
as other reliable sources when accomplishing the PRF as prescribed  in
the AFI.  In his email, Col B-- explained he tried to do what he could
to help get the applicant promoted but his  [applicant’s]  record  was
not strong enough to give him a strong push.  Although  the  applicant
received the PRF nine days prior to the board convening, he still  had
sufficient time to address his  concerns  to  the  senior  rater.   He
failed to show due diligence to correct his record prior to the  board
convening, i.e., AFI 36-2406 states it is the  ratee’s  responsibility
to contact the senior rater if the ratee has not received  a  copy  of
the PRF no later than 15 days prior to  the  CSB.   Further,  Col  B--
stated that if he were to change the PRF today the only  change  would
have been to include the statement “Promote;” he  otherwise  stood  by
the PRF as written.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  also  recommends  denial  based  on  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEP’s
recommendation.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends his second ERAB was based on a  Military  Equal
Opportunity  (MEO)  complaint  he  filed  against  Col  B--   alleging
religious discrimination.  Ultimately the MEO office was reluctant  to
pursue an investigation and he was left with no official  finding  one
way  or  another.   When  the  ERAB   requested   the   official   MEO
determination, he had none to give.  The advisory author contends  his
appeal should be rejected because it somehow is his fault the OPR  and
PRF he was directed to write are in his  record,  ignoring  Col  B--’s
culpability. AFI 36-2406 specifically prohibits ratees from writing or
drafting any portion of their own performance reports or  PRFs.   That
Col B-- even allowed it, much less required it, places  the  violation
squarely on his shoulders.  He had no choice but to write the OPR  and
PRF when directed by Col B--.  Whether he  prevailed  on  Col  B--  to
allow him to write his own reports in  spite  of  the  AFI  ultimately
doesn’t matter since Col B-- bears the total responsibility to  ensure
that never happens.  He has never considered himself up to the task of
writing quality OPRs and PRFs, particularly on himself.   He  expected
Col B-- to expend the necessary  time  and  effort  to  give  him  the
“strong push” he saw him do for others.   The advisory  author  echoes
Col B--’s self-serving and divergent rationalizations by implying  his
appeal should be rejected because his record is  “weak.”   She  argues
Col B-- was  justified  when  he  convened  an  unofficial  mini-board
illegally to rate and rank-order officers he was supposed to  evaluate
himself as required by AFIs.   She claims his appeal should be  denied
because she incorrectly and ignorantly assumed he did not contact  Col
B--’s office within the required 15 days  of  the  CSB  convening  and
because he was unable to get the PRF corrected. She argues his  appeal
should be denied because Col B-- reconsidered the CY02B PRF and  chose
to stand by it as written.  None of her  reasons  for  rejecting  this
appeal has any merit.  Her arguments are an amalgamation  of  changing
the subject, non sequiturs, circular arguments and ad hominem attacks.
 Her conclusion does not in any way follow from her premises.  The net
effect of the  contested  documents,  particularly  the  PRF,  was  to
directly and adversely impact his opportunity for promotion, according
to AFPC experts.  The nonselection counselor at HQ AFPC that  reviewed
his records expressed incredulity at his nonselection  and  identified
the only discrepancy as the contested PRF.  Regardless,  the  strength
or weakness of his records has no real relevance to the issue  of  the
illegitimacy of the reports  he  is  challenging.   The  Board  should
consider the strong likelihood Col B-- harbored some sort of unspoken,
enduring animosity towards him and intended to  harm  him  personally.
AFI 36-2401, para A.1.5.5. allows for  “personality  conflicts”  as  a
basis for approval, which he  believes  was  evidenced  by  Col  B--’s
actions and subsequent reactions with regard to the  PRF.   He  simply
wants a fair review and assessment of his record; however, having  the
top OPR and PRF replaced with AF Forms 77 will be very obvious to  SSB
members.  Therefore, he now requests that he be directly  promoted  to
the grade of LTC as if selected by either the CY01B or CY02B CSBs,  or
be considered by SSBs for those boards [presumably with the  contested
documents removed from his record].

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant the applicant’s  direct
promotion as if selected by either the CY01B or the CY02B LTC CSBs, or
SSB consideration for these boards with the CY02B PRF  and  16 Feb  02
OPR  voided  from  his  records.   After   thoroughly   weighing   the
applicant’s contentions, records, and available evidence, we  are  not
persuaded the contested documents are  erroneous  assessments  of  his
performance and potential at the time they were rendered, or that  Col
B-- acted negligently or unjustly with regard to his  responsibilities
as senior rater and rater.  Officers compete for promotion  under  the
whole person concept whereby a  multitude  of  factors  are  carefully
assessed by the selection board members prior to scoring  the  record.
In addition, the officers may be qualified  but--in  the  judgment  of
selection board members vested with discretionary authority  to  score
their records--may not be the best qualified of  those  available  for
the limited number of promotion  vacancies.   Consequently,  a  direct
promotion should be granted only  under  extraordinary  circumstances;
i.e., a showing that the officer’s record cannot be  reconstructed  in
such a manner so as to permit him/her to compete for  promotion  on  a
fair and equitable basis; a showing that  the  officer  exercised  due
diligence in pursuing timely and effective relief;  and  lastly,  that
had the alleged original  errors  not  occurred,  the  probability  of
his/her being selected for promotion would have been  extremely  high.
We do  not  find  these  factors  in  this  case.   The  applicant  is
dissatisfied with the purported lack  of  strength  in  the  contested
documents; however, he has not shown these evaluations were  illegally
rendered or wrongfully depicted his performance and  potential  during
the period in question.  As the applicant has not established  to  our
satisfaction that the contested PRF and OPR are erroneous  and  should
be voided, neither SSB consideration nor  direct  promotion  would  be
appropriate.   In  view  of  the  foregoing  and  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  on
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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 2 November 2006 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
                 Ms. Maureen B. Higgins, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02191 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 Sep 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 13 Sep 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Oct 06, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL
                                   Panel Chair