RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC 2002-02352
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  Gary R. Myers

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 3 Sep 99 through 2 Sep 00 be removed from his records.

Should he be considered for promotion to major with the above contested report as part of his record and is not selected, he be considered for promotion to major by special selection board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In an eight-page brief submitted by counsel, applicant indicates that an isolated incident of nominal gravity allowed an already biased commander to abuse her position of authority by issuing an OPR that reflected that bias.  Counsel does not dispute that the incident took place and provides a summary of what took place.  In support of applicant’s appeal, counsel provides a copy of the applicant’s appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which was denied, statements of support, and the applicant’s prior record of performance.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 4 Jun 96.  A review of the applicant’s OPRs indicates overall ratings of “meets standards” with the exception of the referral report contested above.  The applicant filed an appeal with the ERAB on 10 Apr 01 seeking to have the referral report rendered on him for the period 3 Sep 99 through 2 Sep 00 removed from his records.  The ERAB denied his request.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing out 2 Sep 00.

The applicant’s 2 Sep 00 OPR was referred to him because of a rating of “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section V (2), Leadership Skills.  The applicant concedes that this was a result of an incident involving a staff sergeant, but believes the incident was a misunderstanding and overstressed by his rater.  Additional comments made by the rater in Section VI suggest that there were other factors involved that the rater considered before rendering her assessment.

AFPC/DPPPE notes several discrepancies in the applicant’s appeal.  They also note that the supporting letters provided by the applicant do not specifically provide firsthand evidence of an injustice on the contested report.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the evaluation prepared by AFPC/DPPPE and recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  The applicant, if eligible, will not be considered for a major’s central selection board until calendar year 2004.  AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation states that SSBs are conducted to consider officers when they did not meet a board or were improperly considered by one or more central selection boards.  The applicant is, therefore, requesting consideration for a board he has not yet met.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel responded to the evaluations by indicating that they have demonstrated in their basic filing that the applicant’s rater was biased against him.  Counsel opines that the information provided in the supporting statements confirm this.  Counsel asserts that the Air Force’s efforts to identify errors in the application is a complete red herring having no relevency to the treatment received by the applicant from his rater.  Counsel specifically addresses each discrepancy pointed out by the Air Force:

	    a.  Counsel states that there were others in the kitchen when the incident took place, but there was no one close to the staff sergeant involved in the incident and no one else heard the comments made.

	    b.  Regarding the applicant’s training plan, counsel asserts that the applicant was deliberately kept from managerial training although he often requested it.  The applicant never really had a training plan, but rather a challenge to test his humiliation limits in hopes of discouraging the applicant to the point that he would voluntarily separate from the Air Force.  When this did not work, the rater focused on the only option she had left, the single isolated misunderstanding.

	    c.  Finally in response to the question about the menial tasks that the applicant performed versus projects he led during his tenure at the wing, counsel states that there is no doubt that applicant’s jobs were menial in nature (and did not correspond to his rank), but the applicant continued to maintain a positive attitude at all times.  To show his willingness to excel under added responsibility, applicant volunteered for numerous wing level projects, many of which the applicant led as primary point of contact.

The Air Force evaluation suggests that “other factors” were insinuated by the rater for the applicant’s referral OPR.  The rater was obligated to state with sufficient specificity so that the applicant could respond to the areas that were unsatisfactory.  The Air Force evaluation supports the notion that raters have the right to engage in vague, unsupported character assassination.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

_________________________________________________________________

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 complete evidence of record, the Board believes that the OPR rendered on the applicant for the period 3 Sep 99 through 2 Sep 00 was unduly harsh given the single incident it appears to be based on.  We note that AFPC/DPPPE opines, “Only the evaluators know how much the incident influenced the report.”  Further, they state that additional comments made by the rater in Section VI of the contested report “strongly suggest” there were other factors considered by the rater besides the referenced incident.  While these observations may have merit, the Board believes that the serious and far-reaching impact of this OPR on the applicant’s Air Force career require that the record contain sufficient evidence to support the rater’s actions.  We find this to be particularly necessary in this case, since none of the previous OPRs rendered on the applicant make reference to his unsuitability to serve as an Air Force officer.  In fact, according to the performance feedback given to the applicant only four months prior to the contested report, he needed little or no improvement in any of the performance factors listed, including leadership.  The only negative information documented in the applicant’s record after the feedback session is the incident referenced in the contested OPR.  The Board believes that the applicant made a serious mistake, but notes that he took immediate action to apologize, in writing, to the injured party.  While some corrective action may have been warranted, the OPR is not the proper instrument.  Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend that the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below.

4.  Since the first promotion board that will consider the applicant for promotion to major will not convene until calendar year 2004, we find no basis to consider the part of the applicant’s request regarding promotion consideration by SSB.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 3 September 1999 through 2 September 2000, be declared void and removed from his records.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2002-02352 in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, 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 25 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Nov 02.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Nov 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Counsel, dated 7 Feb 03.

                                   
AFBCMR BC-2002-02352

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 XXXXXXXXX,  XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 3 September 1999 through 2 September 2000, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.