RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00911
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Jun 99 through 29 Dec 99 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report reflected neither his performance, conduct, nor his potential in his duty position during the period of the report.  Instead, the report minimized, ridiculed, and falsified his performance.  Based on his first-hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this period, as well as that of other individuals, it was readily apparent that the rater knew his statements on the OPR were false when he wrote them.  The additional rater, who concurred on the report, has never even met him, never spoken to him, never made any effort to discuss his performance or the circumstances surrounding this period with him, and had no first-hand knowledge of his performance.  Likewise, the additional rater’s predecessor, who served as the additional rater during the actual period of the report, only met him briefly twice before the period of the OPR, never saw him or spoke to him during the period of report, never made any effort to discuss his performance or the circumstances surrounding this period with him, and had no first-hand knowledge of his performance during the period of the report or any other.  Ultimately, the OPR and the rater’s intent seemed to say more about the character of the rater than his performance.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, a copy of the contested report, documentation pertaining to an Inspector General (IG) investigation, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Mar 99.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 1 Jun 77.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1990 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 4 May 90			Meets Standards
	 1 May 91			Meets Standards
	 2 Jan 92			Meets Standards
	31 Aug 92			Meets Standards
	16 Jul 93			Meets Standards
	16 Jul 94			Meets Standards
	14 Jun 95			Training Report
	14 Jun 96			Meets Standards
	14 Jun 97			Meets Standards
	 5 Jun 98			Meets Standards
	 1 Jun 99			Meets Standards
* 	29 Dec 99		  Does Not Meet Standards
  #	29 Dec 00			Meets Standards
 ##	29 Dec 01			Meets Standards
###	29 Dec 02			Meets Standards

* Contested report.

  # Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the CY01 Brigadier General Board.

 ## Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the CY02 Brigadier General Board.

### Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by the CY03 Brigadier General Board.

A Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 20 Apr 01, indicated that an investigation was conducted into an allegation made by the applicant that the Commander, --- Air Control Wing (-- ACW/CC) did not follow the Commander, Air Combat Command (COMACC) reconstitution guidance following Operation Allied Force.  The ROI concluded that the allegation was not substantiated.

A complete copy of the ROI is at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial.  AFPC/DPPPE noted the applicant’s contention that the rater had a history of self-serving, unethical, abusive, and dishonest behavior as evidenced by a previous SAF/IG investigation.  However, this office procured the summary of investigation of the referenced IG investigation.  The majority of the complaints were unsubstantiated; however, the lack of feedback and unauthorized organizational changes were substantiated.  Further, as stated in AFI 36-2402, paragraph 2.6., the ratee is responsible for notifying the rater and, if necessary, the additional rater if a required feedback session did not take place, and requesting the feedback.

AFPC/DPPPE noted the applicant’s contention that the additional rater had no first-hand knowledge of his performance during this period or any other.  Likewise, the additional rater’s predecessor, who served as the additional rater during the actual period of the report, never saw or spoke to the applicant during the period of this OPR or made any effort to discuss his performance or the circumstances surrounding the period.  However, AFPC/DPPPE indicated that the governing instruction does not require additional raters or even raters to have direct contact with the ratee.  Many individuals have to perform duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision.  Additionally, if an evaluator other than the rater changes after a report closes out, but before it is ready for endorsement, the new evaluator endorses the report.

AFPC/DPPPE stated that in worker-supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a supervisor’s policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased.  However, the conflict generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather than personal.  Investigations into the situation have revealed the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Aug 02 for review and response (Exhibit E).  On 23 Sep 02, the applicant requested that his appeal be temporarily withdrawn (Exhibit F).

Applicant provided a response indicating that the advisory from AFPC/DPPPE completely failed to address the specific concerns he documented with respect to his OPR.  The rater's negative false impressions and statements in the contested OPR have cost him numerous opportunities, including fair consideration for wing command despite the strong recommendations in the three OPRs he has received since the OPR in question, as well as fair consideration for promotion.  While he continues to serve the mission and people of the United States Air Force, he should not have to do so with the anchor of the false statements of the rater continuing to pull his record and career down.  When he ultimately retires, he should be entitled to do so with a record that accurately reflects his years of service, not one that minimizes, ridicules, and falsifies the work he has done.  He strongly requests that the Board void the extremely false and destructive OPR and remove it from his record.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence presented, we have some doubt whether the contested report was an accurate depiction of the applicant's duty performance.  Among various concerns raised about the accuracy of the OPR in question, we are particularly of the opinion that the comments in the OPR (at lines 6 and 7 of Block VI), alluding to the applicant having approved a squadron drinking fest within the wing, were seriously erroneous if not an outright falsification.  In view of the foregoing, we believe any doubt concerning the fairness and accuracy of the contested report should be resolved in favor of the applicant.  Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant's OPR closing 29 Dec 99 be declared void and removed from his records, and that he be provided SSB consideration with his corrected record.
_________________________________________________________________

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 Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 Jun 99 through 29 Dec 99 be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001 Central Brigadier General Selection Board and for any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 29 Dec 99 was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00911 in Executive Session on 26 Aug 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Report of Investigation, dated 20 Apr 01
                 (withdrawn).
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 24 Jul 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 23 Sep 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Sep 02.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jun 03, w/atch.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2002-00911

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 (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 Jun 99 through 29 Dec 99 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of brigadier general by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2001 Brigadier General Selection Board and for any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 29 Dec 99 was a matter of record.