RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01688
		INDEX CODE:  111.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 7 May 95 through 6 May 96 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report contains numerous errors and inconsistencies that invalidate the report and warrant its removal.  After he reviewed the report, he immediately identified three duplicate accomplishments from the report ending 6 May 95.  In all instances, the 6 May 95 report correctly identified accomplishments for that rating period.  These same accomplishments were repeated in the report closing 6 May 96; however, no such events occurred during the rating period.  He believes this was an error reflecting negatively on his performance record.  During performance feedback in May 01, his commander reviewed his record, pointing out the inconsistencies in the report in question.  The commander discussed corrective action and suggested he (applicant) submit the 6 May 96 report to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  Until this time, he believed this course of action was not possible due to his previous appeal to the ERAB.  The commander identified additional issues not considered during his initial appeal:

		1.	A Change of Reporting Official (CRO) was not accomplished when he was reassigned to the 56th FW in Dec 95, which would have generated a performance report.  An annual report was accomplished in May 96 (five months after his reassignment).  This is inconsistent with performance reporting policies.

		2.	The additional rater makes a negative comment, yet “concurs” with the positive assessment of the rater.  This is inconsistent with performance reporting policies.

		3.	Reassignment to the 56th OSS did not occur until Dec 95 yet the rater indicates feedback was not accomplished “due to reassignment.”  Feedback could, and should, have been completed well before Dec 95.  This is inconsistent with performance reporting policies.

The applicant states that singularly, no item identified above justifies removal of the 6 May 96 report.  However, when viewed as a whole, the seven separate instances (three duplicate events, no CRO, additional rater concurrence, lack of feedback, and failure to allow him to respond to the negative comments prior to the final report being placed in his record) are sufficient to invalidate the report in question and warrant removal.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 8 Jul 81.  He is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 98.

Applicant’s OPR profile since 1989 reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              1 Jun 90             Meets Standards (MS)
              1 Jun 91                     MS
             13 Feb 92                     MS
             18 Sep 92                     MS
              6 May 93                     MS
              6 May 94                     MS
              6 May 95                     MS
           *  6 May 96                     MS (Referral Rpt)
              6 May 97                     MS
              6 May 98                     MS
              6 May 99                     MS
              6 May 00                     MS

     * Contested report.

The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36‑2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request to void the report and instead directed the report be referred because it contained referral statements in Section VII (Additional Rater Overall Assessment), Lines 2 ‑ 4.  The ERAB finalized the referral OPR on 29 May 97.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and indicated that it would not be appropriate to void the OPR in its entirety since it can be corrected administratively by removing the repeated information.  Therefore, DPPP suggests the Board direct the repeated comments in Section IV (Impact on Mission Accomplishment), Lines 2, 8, and 9 and Section VI (Rater Overall Assessment), Line 2, be deleted.  Although the applicant believes a CRO should have been accomplished when he was reassigned to the 56th FW, he did not provide evidence from his commander validating that his losing rater had supervised him for 120 days, the minimum number of days of supervision required to necessitate an OPR.

The applicant contends the additional rater concurred with his rater’s assessment yet made a negative comment in Section VI and this is inconsistent with performance reporting policies.  DPPP determined that the additional rater marked the wrong block.  Therefore, the “X” should be moved from the “concur block” to the “nonconcur block.”

DPPP further states that while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  There may be occasions when feedback was not provided during a reporting period, and in those cases, the rater is required to include a reason for lack of feedback.  The applicant did not provide anything from his rater proving the reason for lack of feedback is inaccurate.  Lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.

DPPP concludes that the OPR can be corrected administratively.  The remainder of the report should be maintained as a permanent part of the applicant’s record since he did not provide conclusive evidence from his evaluators indicating any other comments are erroneous.  Therefore, DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void the 6 May 96 OPR and recommends approval of corrections outlined in their summary.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a two-page letter responding to the advisory opinion and stating that the best course of action remains invalidation and elimination of the May 96 OPR from his records.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s performance during the contested period.  While he did not provide conclusive evidence from his evaluators indicating any of the comments on the report are erroneous, we note the inconsistencies on the report in question, i.e., duplicate accomplishments from the report closing 6 May 95; the negative comment made by the additional rater in Section VI yet he concurred with the rater’s assessment, etc.  Therefore, in order to resolve any doubt with respect to the propriety of the OPR in question, and in an effort to preclude any possibility of an injustice, we recommend it be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 7 May 95 through 6 May 96, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 23 August 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

                Panel Chair
                Member
                Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 2 Aug 01, w/atch.

                                   

AFBCMR 01-01688

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 , be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 7 May 1995 through 6 May 1996, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.