RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03956 

 COUNSEL: XXX 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His reaccomplished Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered 
for the period of 26 Jun 07 through 31 Mar 08 be filed in his 
Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 

 

2. His record be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel 
by a Special Section Board (SSB) for the CY08C , CY09C CY10B 
CY11B and CY12A (Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards 
(CSBs). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The following key contentions are made by the applicant’s 
counsel: 

 

 a. The Evaluations Report Appeals Board (ERAB) granted his 
request to remove his OPR for 2008 from his record because a 
Change of Rater (CRO) OPR should have been accomplished. The 
ERAB removed the report in question and replaced it with an AF 
Form 77, Letter of Evaluation (LOE). 

 

 b. He requested the ERAB to replace the 2008 OPR with a 
substitute OPR; however, they denied his request. Nonetheless, 
the ERAB granted his request to enter a substitute Promotion 
Recommendation Form (PRF) into his records. 

 

 c. His rater and additional rater determined that his OMPF did 
not properly reflect his record of performance for the period in 
question; therefore, making his record unfairly incomplete. For 
this reason, his OPR should be replaced with the reaccomplished 
OPR in order to give him a fair opportunity for promotion when he 
meets the SSBs. 

 

 d. Although he met an SSB, he was not promoted. 

 

 e. His rater abdicated his responsibilities and failed to 
render the required OPR prior to retiring. He attempted to 
obtain a replacement OPR from his rater, but his rater stated 
that he would not prepare the required CRO report unless he was 
directed to do so. When the additional rater realized the 


unfairness by the rater, he elected to prepare the report, which 
now made him the rater and his rater the additional rater. 

 

 f. The contrast between the removed OPR and the reaccomplished 
OPR is striking because it shows the true enormity of the rater 
abandoning his responsibility. Specifically, the report did not 
provide any stratification. The reaccomplished report stratified 
him at “#1 of my 41 0-4s!” 

 

 h. While there are no guarantees, the stratification in the 
reaccomplished OPR would have most likely ensured his promotion 
to lieutenant colonel. 

 

 i. There are compelling reasons to substitute the evaluators on 
the reaccomplished report. The difference between the LOE and 
the substitute OPR that stratifies him in the top 5 percent by 
reflecting he was “#1 of 41” is vast. 

 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major. 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force, which is at Exhibit C and D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denying the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration. The applicant has five non-selections to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. He was approved for SSB 
consideration with inclusion of the substituted PRFs for the 
CY08C and CY09C CSBs. As of 18 Dec 12, the results had not been 
released. Based on the DPSID recommendation to deny the 
applicant’s request to remove the LOE and replace it with the 
reaccomplished OPR, they recommend denying the SSB. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove 
the contested LOE based on lack of corroborating evidence 
provided by the applicant. Further, they recommend not replacing 
the LOE with the reaccomplished OPR. The applicant has not 
provided compelling evidence to show that an error or injustice 


occurred, but appears to attempt to include a stratification to 
assist with promotion to the next higher grade. 

 

The ERAB reviewed the applicant’s request and was not convinced 
to have the substitute report replace the LOE. They noted that 
the applicant recreated the OPR after willingly and consciously 
seeking relief to have such report voided. 

 

With regard to the applicant’s first allegation that the report 
was improperly generated, he provides a signed memorandum from 
his rater. In this memorandum, the rater clearly states that due 
to his decision to retire at that time, he made the decision, 
after careful consultation with authorities within the AFLOA 
community, and in accordance with the governing instructions, to 
CRO multiple individuals (majors) to his military deputy. The 
rater was in the best position to comment upon the rationale and 
purpose behind the specific CRO actions he took, which can be 
concluded that all actions were taken as authorized by applicable 
instructions. 

 

The only error that occurred with the voided OPR was that it was 
simply not updated in the Military Personnel Data System 
(MilPDS). However, just because there was a lack in updating the 
CRO in the system, it does not invalidate the fairness/justness 
of a report. In fact, in an e-mail the applicant provided to the 
ERAB as evidence, the military deputy spoke with him and had been 
discussing his upcoming OPR matters as any rater would do with a 
ratee; this was the time to address any issues or concerns that 
he may have had with regard to rater responsibilities or if he 
was unclear who the rater was at the time, rather than years 
later after memories have faded and records are unavailable. 

 

The ERAB did find the 25 Jun 08 OPR unjust or inaccurate and 
provided relief to void the report at the applicant’s request 
based on bullets that were used on the contested report. These 
bullets mentioned a deployment in which the applicant had not 
completed, which happened before the applicant had departed for 
the deployment, and is why the ERAB provided relief. 

 

It is noted that the military deputy statement was conspicuously 
absent. Without the benefit of this statement, it is not 
possible to prove any of the applicant’s contentions. 

 

His evaluation record was erroneous because the stratification 
comment was left off of the 2008 report, which has already been 
voided and removed from his records; despite the applicant’s 
efforts to have his rater provide a substitute or corrected 
report. As an alternative he provides a substitute report signed 
by a different rater and additional rater which gives the 
applicant stratification. However, he fails to understand that 
stratification comments are optional and at the discretion of the 
evaluators. 

 


Finally, the purpose of the appeal process is not to strengthen a 
report, rather to provide relief when a substantial error or 
injustice has occurred. In this case, the reaccomplished OPR 
seems to have been recreated for the sole purpose of 
promotion/career opportunities. He affirmed that he did not get 
selected for promotion In- or Above-the-Zone promotion boards. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluation were forwarded to the 
applicant on 7 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

 

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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03956 in Executive Session on 29 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 18 Dec 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 13. 

 
 

 Panel Chair