RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00246
	                               INDEX CODE 111.01  111.03  111.05  131.01
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 17 Mar 00 through 16 Mar 01 be declared void from his records and he be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for all promotion boards for which the report was a matter of record, beginning with the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a squadron commander, he received an OPR that was inconsistent with prior evaluation due to a personality conflict with the wing commander and lack of feedback from the logistics group commander. As a result of bias due to false accusations and counseling on matters such as officer’s club membership and participation in the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC), he was given an OPR that lacked a statement for larger command or Senior Service School (SSS). He was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) at the end of his tour while his peers received Meritorious Service Medals (MSMs). The Evaluations Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request and referred him to the Inspector General (IG), who would not investigate his case.

He provides supporting statements from several individuals, including the raters for the 16 Mar 00 and 16 Mar 02 OPRs.

The applicant’s complete submission, with 14 attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major (date of rank: 1 Nov 97). During the period in question he was the commander of the XXth Logistics Support Squadron at XXXX AFB, NM. The rater of the contested report was the XXth Logistics Group commander, and the additional rater 
was the XXth Special Operations Wing commander. The additional rater of the contested report was also the additional rater for the previous OPR closing 16 Mar 00. 

The applicant’s recent performance reports reflect the following:

	PERIOD ENDING		EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

	  30 Jun 98				Meets Standards
	  16 Mar 99				Meets Standards
	  16 Mar 00				Meets Standards
	* 16 Mar 01				Meets Standards 
	  16 Mar 02				Meets Standards
	**28 Jun 02				Training Report

* Contested & top report reviewed by CY01B Board
**Top report reviewed by CY02B Board

The applicant was considered, but not selected, by the CY01B LTC board, which convened on 5 Nov 01. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) had an overall recommendation of “Promote.” The applicant provided a letter to the CY01B selection board regarding the contested OPR, explaining the report was a result of a personality conflict with the wing commander based on false information that was neither duty related nor of a UCMJ nature. He also indicated he received no performance feedback. The contested OPR indicates he last received feedback on 31 Jan 01.  

On 22 Oct 02, the ERAB denied the applicant’s request to void the 16 Mar 01 OPR. He was advised to contact the IG if he believed this to be a case of reprisal or retribution. 

The applicant was also considered, but not selected, by the CY02B board, which convened on 12 Nov 02. His PRF had an overall recommendation of “Promote.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the applicant did not provide supporting statements from the rating chain. Further, the same additional rater included professional military education (PME) and assignment recommendations in the previous year’s evaluation. Clearly rating chain opinions changed in the contested reporting period. Individuals who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe an evaluator is personally biased. There are no derogatory comments on the contested OPR. A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session or document the session will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report. Through the applicant’s own admission, he was only going to appeal the OPR if it kept him from being promoted.  His contentions have been poorly supported and they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing to add to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory. SSB is not warranted and denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant is concerned regarding a conflict of interest and the impartiality of HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s evaluation given that the author was part of the ERAB process and wrote the cover letter for the ERAB’s denial. AFI 36-2401 states ratings and comments inconsistent with prior evaluations are reasons to appeal an OPR. Additionally, the fact that the additional rater did not change is especially relevant. While true that the additional rater remained the same, if the additional rater changed his assessment in such a dramatic fashion, feedback should have been provided to note such a major change in opinion. The applicant refers to the supporting statements he provided, one of which was from the previous logistics group commander. It is extremely illogical to expect comments from the chain of command during the disputed period as the lack of comments is one of the grounds for this case. He has no knowledge of the evidence that the chain of command used to determine their dissatisfaction with him as they provided him with no comments or specific reasons to support the ratings and comments in the OPR. Further, to suggest he needed closer supervision misses the point of the case. Closer supervision would require feedback, identifying the problem, recommending a solution and period assessment of progress, which did not occur. Due to the personality conflict, the additional rater would not discuss the matter to resolution, or tell him or his rater what he was accused of or by whom. The lack of feedback is not the sole reason for removing the OPR; i.e., the report is inconsistent with prior evaluations, there was a personality conflict, and there was undue emphasis on isolated, unsubstantiated incidents. An individual cannot remedy a problem if he is unaware of the problem. To suggest that the feedback system is not a key factor in the betterment of duty performance is inconsistent with USAF policy, which has made it mandatory.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, 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 to warrant voiding the contested OPR and granting the applicant SSB consideration. After carefully reviewing the applicant’s submission and the available evidence, a majority of the Board concedes the 16 Mar 01 report could possibly be tainted. In this regard, the Board majority was impressed by active duty officers willing to attest to the strained relationship between the additional rater and the applicant, which apparently was driven by the additional rater’s unsubstantiated charges of disloyalty and poor leadership against the applicant. Most convincing to the majority of the Board was the supporting statement from the captain who served as the area defense counsel (ADC) at Kirtland AFB during the period in question. The ADC asserted the applicant’s claims were neither that of a disgruntled subordinate nor an isolated point of view, and that a quality officer’s career should not be damaged by the inappropriate actions of what appeared to be a command clique. The Board majority notes the additional rater accused the applicant of “bad-mouthing” him, yet he provided no specifics regarding the alleged derogatory remarks or who made them. Since he refused to discuss or reveal specifics to the applicant, the Board majority finds it plausible that the applicant received no feedback as he contends. The additional rater also believed the applicant did not support the CFC program despite the applicant’s explanation of why he had not contributed to it. In the Board majority’s opinion, the additional rater seems to have felt somewhat at odds with the Logistics personnel’s support, and may have allowed this to prejudice his assessment of the applicant. The lackluster OPR appears to be in sharp contrast to the applicant’s otherwise glowing performance history and, in view of the above, the majority of the Board believes any benefit of the doubt should be resolved in the applicant’s favor by voiding the contested OPR and affording the applicant SSB consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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, for the period 17 March 2000 through 16 March 2001 be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for any and all selection boards for which the OPR was a matter of record, beginning with the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 June 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

A majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as recommended. XXXXX voted to deny the appeal but does not wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00246 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Mar 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Mar 03, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2003-00246

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 XXXXX, be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, for the period 17 March 2000 through 16 March 2001 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 lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for any and all selection boards for which the OPR was a matter of record, beginning with the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.