RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01766
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 21 Jun 98 through 20 Jun 99 be removed from his records and that a Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, rendered on him for the period 14 Apr 99 through 4 Jul 99 be added to his permanent personnel records.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR closing out 20 Jun 99 rendered on him was essentially a rewrite of a referral OPR written by his rater who was removed after his objections due to confirmation of three allegations against his rater by the inspector general (IG).

The tepid language of the new OPR failed to accurately describe his actual duty performance.  The OPR does not reference key duties that had a significant impact on the mission of the Air Force.  His former rater trivialized his duty performance in an obvious effort to retaliate for his IG complaint in violation of the Whistleblower Rights.

Prior to the IG investigation, he had received an outstanding OPR and an outstanding feedback.  His performance was stellar as indicated by a copy of an LOE he has attached.

In addition to improper comments on his faith group in section III, line 2, and section VI, the new OPR was weakened in several ways.  The strongest comment made in section IV by his former rater was deleted and an entire line wasted for the word “base”.  He also advised in the report that his rater had been removed due to an IG complaint.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 20 Feb 84.  A profile of his last ten Officer Performance Reports follows:

	Closeout Date			Overall Evaluation

    4 May 91			  Meets Standards
    4 May 92			  Meets Standards
    4 May 93			  Meets Standards
    4 May 94			  Meets Standards
    4 May 95			  Meets Standards
    4 May 96			  Meets Standards
    20 Jun 97			  Meets Standards
    20 Jun 98			  Meets Standards
   *20 Jun 99			  Meets Standards
    20 Jun 00			  Meets Standards

*  Contested report

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The applicant believes it was unfair for his new rater to have maintained the comments written by the former rater who was removed for cause.  In their 1 May 01 memorandum, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board asked the applicant to provide statements from the evaluators who prepared the report or others higher in the rating chain when the report was signed, or as an alternative, the finalized IG or Equal Opportunity and Treatment investigation, substantiating his contentions.  The applicant did not obtain the requested information.  

It would not be appropriate to file the AF Form 77 (LOE) in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) in place of the OPR.  LOEs are not maintained in the OSR.  Evaluators may use the information reflected in LOEs to prepare the ratee’s next OPR, but does not attach them to the report.

In their 1 May 01 memo, the ERAB addressed the applicant’s concerns over his evaluator’s use of the word “Protestant” in the contested report.  The word “Protestant” has been used on previous Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and OPRs and as part of the applicant’s duty title for his entire career.  The applicant did not provide additional evidence proving use of the word “Protestant” had weakened his record in any way.

The applicant further contends his rater dropped the “t” from the word budget, wasted a full line for the word base, and omitted the word personnel, deleted the strongest comment written by the former rater, and referred to the IG complaint.  AFPC/DPPP also notes that the word “challenge” is misspelled.

The ERAB removed the reference to the IG, but did not correct the spelling errors (budget and challenge) and missing word (personnel).  They recommend the AFBCMR direct correction of the misspelled words and addition of the word personnel.  They do not recommend adding another accomplishment to the OPR without the support of his rater.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was mailed to the applicant on 20 Jul 01 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  The overall poor quality of the contested OPR causes the Board to question the rater’s commitment to rendering a fair and impartial evaluation of the applicant.  In addition to the numerous errors pointed out by the applicant, the Board found another misspelled word in the report.  In weighing the circumstances that the OPR was accomplished under and the obvious inattention to detail, the Board believes that the OPR creates the appearance of an injustice.  Therefore, the Board believes it would be in the best interest of justice to remove the report in its entirety from the applicant’s record.  The Board also notes the applicant’s request to make the AF Form 77 rendered on him for the period 14 Apr 99 through 4 Jul 99 a permanent part of his records.  Since granting this request would be contrary to Air Force regulatory guidance, the Board finds no basis to favorably consider this part of the applicant’s request.  Therefore, the Board recommends that the record be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report, rendered for the period 21 June 1998 through 20 June 1999 be declared void and removed from his records.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 9 October 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 21 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.

                                   

AFBCMR 01-01766

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 AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report, rendered for the period 21 June 1998 through 20 June 1999 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.