Opinion ID: 518070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Air Force Administrative Proceedings

Text: 4 Through internal administrative procedures, Major Kreis then sought removal of Lieutenant General Hughes's evaluation from his OER or, alternatively, voidance of the entire OER. After receiving testimony, the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records, in 1980, concluded that appellant had demonstrated the existence of probable error or injustice. The Board then stated: 5 [T]he evidence applicant has presented creates sufficient doubt in our minds that the contested report is an accurate reflection of his duty performance during that reporting period. However we do not feel that the evidence presented warrants a recommendation that the indorser's ratings and comments be voided. In an effort to solve this dilemma, and to afford applicant equity, we therefore recommend applicant's record be corrected by voiding the contested report. 6 The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force accepted this recommendation on behalf of the Secretary. Pursuant to Air Force regulations concerning voided OERs, the Assistant Secretary ordered that appellant's contested OER be removed and replaced with an AF Form 77 stating: Not rated for the above period. Report was removed by Order of the Secretary of the Air Force. 7 Shortly thereafter, a selection board considered but did not select appellant for promotion to lieutenant colonel. Appellant then submitted another application to the Board, in which he argued that the void created by removal of the OER and the prejudicial effect of the AF Form 77, combined with his 1979 reassignment to a position of reduced responsibility, had prejudiced his chances for promotion. Major Kreis requested that the Board not only void his recent nonselection for promotion but also award him retroactive promotion. The Board denied this application, stating that the AF Form 77 was not prejudicial; it did not separately address appellant's 1979 reassignment. 8 In 1983, appellant requested that the Board reconsider its denial of retroactive promotion. Appellant submitted additional evidence which, he claimed, demonstrated the prejudicial effect of his 1979 reassignment and voidance of his OER. In addition, he argued that prior Board cases involving awards of retroactive promotion were analogous to his own. During the pendency of this application, two more selection boards passed over Major Kreis for promotion. 9 Upon reconsideration, the Board reaffirmed its denial of retroactive promotion, stating that the reason for appellant's nonselection cannot be definitively ascertained and that the evidence submitted did not conclusively prove that appellant would have been promoted but for the events of 1979. The Board added that the evidence was not sufficiently compelling to warrant a definitive finding that applicant's change in assignment was due to the results of the [Inspector General's] investigation. 10 In 1984, Major Kreis again sought reconsideration by the Board. This time he asked the Board to recommend restoration of his voided OER, with Lieutenant General Hughes's evaluation deleted, as well as retroactive promotion. In the alternative, Major Kreis asked the Board to recommend that the Secretary void appellant's nonselections for promotion and refer his record to special selection boards, accompanied by a statement that [t]he OERs before and after the voided report are more characteristic of the quality of Major Kreis' performance during the rating period [covered by the voided report] and that Major Kreis should have been assigned, in 1979, to a position of increased responsibility at the Tactical Air Command. 11 In 1986, the Board granted appellant's application, in part, recommending that the Secretary reinstate the rater's portion of the OER without Lieutenant General Hughes's comments. With respect to appellant's further request for retroactive promotion, however, the Board emphasized that [t]he function of a selection board is highly discretionary and reiterated that the specific reason for an officer's nonselection [for promotion] cannot be definitively ascertained. For this reason, a recommendation of promotion is not warranted, it said, except to correct an egregious error or injustice. The Board then concluded that: 12 [T]he possible injustice of applicant's reassignment in 1979 (which has not been firmly established to our satisfaction) and the presence of the properly prepared AF Form 77 ... in applicant's selection folder does not establish a promotion injustice of such a magnitude warranting promotion by this Board. 13 The Board did not address appellant's alternative request for insertion of a statement in his record to indicate that his 1979 reassignment had resulted from error and injustice, presumably due to its earlier finding that appellant had failed to show that the Inspector General's investigation had caused the reassignment. The Board did, however, recommend that Major Kreis be reconsidered for promotion, based on his corrected record, by special selection boards for each of the years 1980 to 1985. The Secretary accepted the Board's recommendations. Each of the special selection boards then considered but did not select Major Kreis for promotion to lieutenant colonel.