RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02814
		INDEX CODE:  111.05
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 16 Jan 00 through 15 Jan 01 be corrected to reflect that she met standards or be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral OPR is based on speculation of an alleged unprofessional relationship with an enlisted member.  In 1998 she was assigned as Flight Commander of a flight of nine recruiters.  She relied heavily on the experience of TSgt XXXXX, who had been a recruiter for 7 years.  Due to the nature of the job, she and TSgt XXXXX frequently had to travel together to conduct interviews, visit college campuses, attend recruiting fairs, and visit recruiters in the field.  Over a 15-month period they spent many hours together in the office, driving together, and flying to various locations.  During this time they were both separated from their spouses and going through divorces.  TSgt XXXXX' wife was convinced that the reason he wanted a divorce was because he was having an affair with her.  She was unable to accept the truth that he simply did not love her anymore.  His spouse constantly made calls to the squadron and group commanders as well as the Security Police and Office of Special Investigations (OSI) trying to cause trouble and making allegations.  She was infuriated when they refused to look into the matter because there was insufficient evidence.  The applicant was counseled by her commander on avoiding the appearance of impropriety.  She assured him that she was conducting herself appropriately but he never seemed to accept her denials of impropriety.  

Despite having completed nearly 18 years of service, TSgt XXXXX decided to separate.  He knew it would cost him his military pension, but he decided that the amount that he was going to get after his spouse took her share of his retirement pay did not justify his staying any longer.  While it may be true that one small factor in his decision to separate was to pursue a relationship with her, that did not in any way impugn her integrity as an officer.  She upheld her responsibilities as an officer by making it clear to him that she could not pursue a relationship with him while they were both on active duty.  If he chose to separate in part to pursue a relationship with her, there is absolutely nothing morally, legally, or ethically wrong with that.  He separated in August 1999 and shortly thereafter they began a serious relationship and subsequently married each other.

The comments in the OPR that she failed to meet standards are completely unfair, unjustified, and unduly prejudicial to her career.  Her commander wrote her referral OPR in January 2001 based on comments and actions which supposedly occurred in January 2000.  If she indeed made such comments or exhibited the behaviors that led him to believe that she was having an inappropriate relationship then it should have reflected in her OPR dated January 2000.  AFI 36-2406 states "Do not include comments regarding events which occurred in a previous reporting period, unless the events...were known and considered by the previous evaluators."  If the events came to her commander's attention in January 2000 as he states, then it had to have been known and considered in her last OPR and it was clearly improper to comment in the January 2001 OPR.  At the time the January 2000 OPR was written, her raters apparently had no concerns about her officership or professionalism.  

The comment in section VI of the OPR that she failed to meet standards is inaccurate and untruthful.  There is no evidence to substantiate her commander's claim of dishonest behavior/lack of integrity and her job performance was otherwise stellar.  She was repeatedly counseled regarding an alleged relationship.  The relationship with TSgt XXXXX was scrutinized intensively and there was simply no evidence of wrongdoing, merely idle speculation.  She assured her chain of command that she was not and would not have a relationship with a subordinate while on active duty.  She well understood that such a relationship was prohibited and would have affected the overall productivity, morale and trust of her flight members.  Reference letters from former flight members provide clear evidence that they had and continue to have the utmost respect for her.  The only person who took the rumors seriously was her commander.  

The sole evidence of her alleged lack of integrity and failure to meet standards is the fact that she and TSgt XXXXX began dating and were married fairly soon after his separation.  From this, her commander concluded that all the rumors must have been true and that she must have been lying to him when she previously denied any wrongdoing.  He even suggested to her that the only reason her husband separated was because he was already engaged in an unprofessional relationship with her.  He ignored the fact that she and her husband knew each other very well by the time he separated and had become friends.  

If this OPR remains in her record it will have a very negative impact on her chances for promotion to major in 2003.  Every OPR thus far has been exemplary, including the most recent OPR prepared in March 2002.  If not promoted she will be forced to separate after 15 years of dedicated service to the country.  It is her strong desire to stay in the Air Force for at least 20 years and retire before moving on to the civilian workforce.

In support of her request, applicant provided a personal statement, her Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision memorandum, her referral OPR with attachments, a chronological summary of events, and reference statements.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a Nurse Corps officer, is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain.  The following is a resume of her recent OPR profile:

PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL RATING

	15 Jan 02		Meets Standards (MS)
	15 Jan 01*	Does Not Meet Standards in Section V item 3 (Professional Qualities)
	15 Jan 00		MS
	15 Jan 99		MS
	15 Jan 98		MS

*- Contested Report

Applicant submitted an appeal to the ERAB for removal of the OPR closing 15 Jan 01 and her appeal was denied.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPE states that the ERAB denied her appeal because she did not provide any documentation to prove her claim; stating, the most effective evidence consists of statements from evaluators who signed the report or from other individuals in the rating chain when the report was signed.   Although the memorandums she provided from members outside her rating chain are admirable, these memorandums of support do not address her allegation that the referral OPR is based on speculation of an unprofessional relationship.  Regarding her contention that the speculation of an unprofessional relationship should have been addressed in her previous OPR closing 15 Jan 00, DPPPE states that AFI 36-2406 states "do not include comments regarding events which occurred in a previous reporting period unless the events add significantly to the evaluation report, were not known and considered by the previous evaluators, and were not previously reflected in an evaluation report."  The rater clearly states that in January 2000, he was forced to conclude that her precious adamant denials of an inappropriate relationship were untruthful.  This rating period began 16 Jan 00.  There is no substantiated documentation to support her allegation that her rater based his evaluation on pure speculation.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  The applicant's contentions are duly noted: however, after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that she has provided in support of her appeal, the Board majority finds no evidence of an error in this case and is not persuaded that she has been the victim of an injustice.  In the rating process, evaluators are required to assess a ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.  In cases of this nature, the Board majority does not feel inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary authority.  Other than her own assertions, evidence has not been presented which would lead the Board majority to believe that her rating chain abused their authority.  Therefore, the Board majority agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for their conclusion that she has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-02240 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the requests.  Ms. Evans voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, 29 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 4 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 11 Oct 02.

	

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
               FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.