RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03271
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
            COUNSEL: NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be directly promoted to the grade of brigadier general (0-7) or  she
receive expeditious Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  for
promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the  Calendar  Year  2007
(CY07) Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her officer selection record (OSR) that met the CY07 Air  Force  Reserve
General  Officer  Selection  Board  contained   an   erroneous   Officer
Performance Report (OPR), which was copied from a previous report.   The
error was discovered during the Board, but no effort was made to correct
the error until after the Board had adjourned. This error prevented  her
from receiving fair consideration for promotion.

In support of the request, the applicant submitted a personal statement,
an  AF  IMT  Form  709,  Promotion  Recommendation,  an  AF  Form   948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, three  AF  IMT
707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, dated 26 Mar 07,  10  Jul
06, and 26 Mar 07, respectively, a copy of a  Memorandum  for  Record  –
Administrative Error in OPR Processing, and several emails.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant currently serves in the Reserves in the grade of  colonel,
with a date of rank of 1 May 01.  She was  considered  and  non-selected
for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the  CY07  Air  Force
Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board, which  convened  on  20
Jul 07.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/DPG recommends denial.  DPG states, in part, that according to AFI 36-
2501,  Officer  Promotions  and  Selective  Continuation,  Para   1.7.2,
eligible officers are responsible for ensuring  the  accuracy  of  their
military personnel data  systems  (MLPDS)  data  and  officer  selection
records prior to the board  convening  date.   Paragraph  1.7.4  states,
eligible officers should review Promotion Recommendation Forms and  OPRs
for accuracy and discuss any concerns with  rating  officials,  pointing
out any omissions of facts, such as significant achievements, wrong duty
title, or duty description.  On 28 Mar 07, the  applicant  was  notified
via email, of her eligibility for the  aforementioned  promotion  board,
and on 13 Apr 07, she was sent a follow-up email containing  information
recommending she review  her  record  prior  to  the  convening  of  the
promotion board, as  uncorrected  information  could  negatively  affect
promotion opportunity.  To the best of their knowledge, she did not take
the opportunity to review her records prior to the board.   A  corrected
OPR for the period of 19 May 06 through 9 Feb 07, was certified  by  the
Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) and updated in her record on  6  Aug
07, replacing her previous OPR for the same time period.

The applicant claims her Feb 07 OPR was inaccurate and identical to  her
previous OPR, which closed out in May 06.  During the normal process  of
reviewing each eligible’s record prior to  the  board,  the  applicant’s
record was reviewed and the OPR section  of  her  selection  record  was
found to be complete.  There  were  no  gaps  in  reporting  periods  or
missing evaluations.  Further review of the OPRs in question,  concluded
that the Feb 07 OPR was very similar to the  previous  report;  however,
several items had been changed.  Block 5, Period of Report, was  updated
to reflect the recent reporting period; Block 6, No of Days Supervision,
reflected an updated number of days  of  supervision;  and  the  rater’s
name, social security number, date, and the signature on the back of the
form had been updated.  Further changes include  a  change  in  the  Job
Description, Block 2, Key Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities,  and  the
last line of the Rater’s Overall Assessment.  At the time of the  board,
her record was complete.  Her top two OPRs were quite similar,  however,
such similarities do not constitute the Feb 07 OPR, as being  inherently
wrong or in error.  Obvious changes  had  been  made  to  the  new  OPR,
ensuring the proper report dates, days of supervision, update of  rater,
and some other information had been changed, as stated above, indicating
the content of the OPR was intentional.

She states that, Brigadier General L------  asked  if  her  correct  OPR
could be given to the board, and  if  the  board  could  be  halted  and
reconvened with her corrected record; she claims his request was denied.
 At the time of the board, the OPR she claims to be incorrect was  filed
in her OSR.  The procedures for Air Force and participating Reserve  and
Air National Guard members to correct
OPRs after they are made a matter of record, is governed by AFI 26-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  Requests to correct
evaluation reports are assessed through the Evaluation  Reports  Appeals
Board (ERAB) either at the Air Force Personnel Center, for personnel  on
extended active duty (EAD), or  at  the  ARPC,  for  Non-EAD  personnel.
Section 3 of this AFI outlines instructions for application to the ERAB.
 Section 3.3.2 indicates processing for such applications is normally 4-
6 weeks, and recommends submitting applications no later  than  90  days
prior to an upcoming SSB or promotion board.  There is no evidence of  a
phone call from Brigadier General L_____ during the time of  the  board;
however, his executive officer left a message regarding the  applicant’s
OPR on the day the board convened to correct the record.  His  call  was
returned and upon the executive officer’s request he was advised to work
through the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  DPG  is
unaware of any contact made by Brigadier General L_______ regarding  the
applicant’s OPR.  However, had he made a request  to  an  agency,  other
than the ERAB, to correct the OPR, his request would have been denied in
accordance with AFI 36-2401.  Furthermore, had  the  request  been  made
through the ERAB during the timeframe  the  applicant  indicates,  there
would not have been sufficient time to process the request for insertion
into her record  for  review  by  the  promotion  board,  based  on  the
processing time described in this AFI.

It is unlikely, that if  discovered  during  the  board  proceedings,  a
determination could have been made the report was in error.  However, if
a material error in an OPR is identified during a promotion  board,  the
promotion board cannot take action as it does not have the authority  of
the ERAB to make or approve corrections to  OPRs  that  are  matters  of
record.  DPG is assured the board proceedings were conducted fairly  and
correctly.   Furthermore,  the  Air  Force   Personnel   System   allows
individuals who feel their records met a promotion board  with  material
errors, recourse through the ERAB and SSB processes.

The complete AF/DPG evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states, in part, the Air Force’s assertion that it is  her
fault the wrong OPR was in her OSR is unacceptable.   She  contends  the
Air Force is responsible for the error.   Who  is  responsible  for  the
error is irrelevant  and  the  personnel  process  should  be  based  on
fairness for appeal and correction  of  records  where  necessary.   Her
senior rater on the erroneous OPR admitted his error  in  this  instance
and quickly notified her, offering to submit corrective  documents.   He
did this on 27 Jul 07, and her  record  was  amended  by  ARPC,  without
further question.  At no time did he seek to blame her for his  mistake.
The AF/GOMO response to her claim that the OPR was wrong  and  identical
to the previous OPR, makes mockery of her appeal.  The error is  obvious
to anyone who is not otherwise predisposed to find against her  request.
She is not just claiming the OPR is wrong, but she has demonstrated this
beyond any doubt.  She reviewed her OPR after it had been made a part of
her official record in Mar 07, which was  before  the  board  met.   She
provided inputs to her rater and noticed  the  OPR  did  not  appear  to
contain many of them.  She keyed in on the last line in General L-----‘s
endorsement, which is considered to be the most  significant  indication
of how one is rated, and was pleased with what he wrote.   Although  she
was somewhat disappointed there was no mention of  some  of  her  recent
achievements, it did not occur to her that all of the  language  on  the
OPR, with the exception of the single line mention, was identical to the
OPR written by his predecessor.  Had she taken the time  to  review  the
OPR from 2006, and do a line-by-line comparison, she would have  noticed
the error and contacted General  L------  to  rectify  the  error.   The
assertion that she failed to review her record prior  to  the  board  is
incorrect.  She took action to update her promotion record after she did
not receive an Officer Pre-selection Brief (OPB).

An SSB is composed of five or more senior officers, of which,  at  least
one-half will be Reserve officers and at least one  officer  will  be  a
JAG.  She does not believe she would receive fairness in  this  process.
The SSB will have just three records to review and at a  minimum,  every
Reserve officer and the JAG will know who the selectee/selectees at  the
original board were.  Unlike other ranks, the general officer  cadre  is
small and every new promotion list gets a lot of attention.  By  failing
to accept corporate responsibility, the Air  Force  has  demonstrated  a
lack of integrity in dealing with this matter.  That attitude will  also
render a fair SSB impossible.  The effect will be that her  career  will
be truncated, not by a decision fairly based on merit, but as  a  result
of an administrative error.  Only consideration  for  promotion  by  the
BCMR or in the alternative, an SSB held prior to public release can make
her whole.

The applicant’s complete 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 concerning the  applicant’s  request
that she receive direct promotion to the grade of brigadier general.  In
this respect, we believe that direct promotion should only be considered
in extraordinary circumstances where SSB consideration has  been  deemed
to  be  totally  unworkable.   We  find  no  such  showing  here.    The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of
an error or injustice in this matter.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the  contrary,  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend  granting  this  portion  of  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

4.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of  an  error  or  injustice  in  regard  to  the  applicant’s
contention that her OSR contained errors and her request  for  promotion
consideration by SSB.  We note that SSB consideration prior to  the  Air
Force Reserve General Officer promotion announcement was  not  possible,
due to the board considering  the  applicant’s  case  after  the  public
release date of the promotion board.  Further, the Board  believes  that
the proper recourse for the applicant  is  an  SSB.   At  the  time  the
applicant was considered for promotion by the  CY07  Air  Force  Reserve
General  Officer  Vacancy  Selection  Board,  her  record  contained  an
inaccurate OPR, which has since been corrected.  Whether the  inaccurate
OPR was  the  cause  of  her  nonselection  we  are  unable  to  answer.
Nevertheless, we believe that the applicant was  deprived  of  fair  and
equitable consideration.  Accordingly, in order to resolve any potential
injustice to the applicant, the Board believes that any  doubt  in  this
matter should be resolved in her favor and  that  her  corrected  record
should be provided supplemental promotion consideration by the CY07  Air
Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.

5.    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 pertinent military records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
brigadier general by a Special Selection Board  for  the  Calendar  Year
2007 Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
03271 in Executive Session on 12 Feb 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member

            Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member


All members voted to correct the record, as recommended.  The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Oct 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Memo, AF/DPG, dated 15 Nov 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 07, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 2007-03271



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 APPLICANT, be considered for promotion to the grade of
brigadier general by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2007
Air Force Reserve General Officer Vacancy Selection Board.





                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency