RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03086
		INDEX CODE 111.01  111.05
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 28 Feb 02 be removed from his records [and, if still a matter of record when the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Central Selection Board convenes on 1 Mar 04, he be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration].

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR is in violation of AFI 36-2401 and 36-2406 because it contains inaccurate statements, was not classified as a referral report, and had insufficient supervision. The rater’s supervision was actually less than 30 days of the 151-day training period. There was no contact between his new supervisor and the rater, who was at another location, and the additional rater had no first-hand knowledge of his performance. The OPR does not reflect his accomplishments, contains invalid and vague statements, and is clearly derogatory in nature. It should have been referred to him so he could rebut the comments. Further, he was not relocated to the J M O T E (JMO-T) but to the P T & T Xxx (Xxx). This is not a subtle difference in job titles and this statement should be eliminated from the OPR. The report is contrary to applicable AFIs and, if not removed, will have a damaging effect on his promotion chances during the CY04A LTC board.

The applicant’s immediate supervisor provided a supporting statement and a copy of an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, dated 29 Mar 02 for the period 12 Nov 01 through 28 Feb 02. [Note: This report was optional and is not in the applicant’s records.] The supervisor indicated that, prior to the applicant’s arrival, the XXXXXX (XXXXX) Deputy Surgeon General requested he document the applicant’s performance while under his supervision with an AF Form 77. He complied with this request and advised that, prior to the form’s submission, there was no contact between himself and the rater and very limited contact with the additional rater. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the grade of major with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 00.

The 28 Feb 02 OPR, which is designated as a Change in Reporting Official (CRO) report, reflects the applicant was assigned as the Chief of Medical Readiness and Training to the Office of the Command Surgeon, HQ XXXX, at XXXX AFB, XX. The report indicates the applicant met all performance factors. The rater commented the applicant developed a guidebook “upon request,” a talking paper/guidance “when asked,” and would be a valuable contributor “with mentorship.” The additional rater commented that the applicant was “relocated” to JMO-T for a better skills match.

The additional rater of the contested OPR became the rater on the subsequent OPR closing 28 Feb 03, which is designated an annual report and which identified the applicant as the Deputy Program Manager for the P T and T Xxx at XXXX AFB.

The applicant was considered, but not selected, for the grade of LTC below-the-promotion-zone (BPZ) by the CY02A and CY02C LTC boards, which convened on 19 Feb 02 and 3 Dec 02, respectively. According to HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, the CY04A LTC Central Selection board is scheduled to convene on 1 Mar 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE advises the applicant filed a similar appeal with the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB), which asked him to provide supporting documentation indicating there was insufficient supervision, an incorrect rater on the report, or a statement from the rater as to why he wrote the report if he was not the rater. Documentation proving the rater was not his assigned rater still has not been provided. The letter provided by the applicant’s supervisor [emphasis advisory’s] during the reporting period clearly states he was to provide an AF Form 77 to the rater for an evaluation to be accomplished. The supervisor further states to his knowledge a change of reporting official making him the rater as the applicant contends never occurred. AFI 36-2401 does not require the designated rater to be the immediate supervisor. AFI 36-2406 allows commanders to deviate from the normal (supervisory) rating chain when necessary to meet grade requirements or to accommodate unique organizational structures and situations. Many Air Force members are geographically separated or on different shifts from their rater; however, individuals performing duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision is not a basis to void a performance report. In this case, the applicant apparently was either on loan or matrixed to another organization but maintained his rating chain at his assigned unit. The statements referred to by the applicant are not derogatory nor do they imply he was not meeting standards; therefore, the report is not a referral. While it is unclear based on the documentation (other than the applicant’s allegation itself) exactly how the organization was structured, it actually appears the rating chain was familiar with his location. The evidence is primarily opinionated and the rating chain does not provide support. Therefore denial is recommended. However, to better reflect exactly where the applicant performed his duties, recommend Section I (8) be changed to read: “Office of the Cmd Surgeon, HQ XXXX, XXXXX AFB, XX, with duty at P T and T Xxx, XXXXX Army Medical Center, XX.”

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing further to add to the DPPPE advisory. If the recommended changes to Section I (8) are made, they should be made before the CY04A board convenes. If not, and the applicant is not selected for promotion, he will probably submit a request for SSB as a result of incorrect data on his OPR.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He does not contend that 28 Feb 02 OPR rater was not his actual rater but rather that she was not his direct supervisor. She had no contact with his actual supervisor in the preparation of this report. He doubts any rater would willingly provide documentation to a subordinate who is requesting to have an OPR removed. The evidence he has already provided clearly shows that his supervisor had no contact with the rater and that a disparity does exist between the AF Form 77 and the contested OPR. He specifically identified those areas of the OPR that he feels are derogatory and will have a damaging effect on his upcoming promotion board. Further, the JMO-T and the Xxx are two separate and distinct organizations having no relationship between them. JMO-T is located at US XXXXX Command, Camp XXXXX and the Xxx is located at XXXXX Army Medical Center. He was never relocated to JMO-T, nor did he ever work there. At the very least, the OPR should be corrected to reflect accurate information.

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 report. The author of the AF Form 77 indicates he had no contact with the rater and very limited contact with the additional rater. As instructed, he rendered an AF Form 77, but in our view the rating chain appears to have given his input little regard. The difference between the comments in the positive AF Form 77 and the lackluster OPR were striking. The additional rater’s erroneous assertion that the applicant was “relocated” also leads us to question the accuracy of the entire evaluation. Given this uncertainty, we are uncomfortable with the OPR’s questionable comments remaining available for a selection board’s review. As the applicant’s promotion opportunity could be unfairly disadvantaged, we conclude the 28 Feb 02 report should be voided in order to avoid any possibility of an injustice. If the contested OPR has not been removed when the CY04A LTC board convenes, we further recommend the applicant be afforded SSB consideration for that board. 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 1 October 2001 through 28 February 2002 be declared void and removed from his records.

It is further recommended that, if the OPR is still a matter of record when the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Central Selection Board convenes, he be considered for promotion to the grade of LTC by a Special Selection Board for the CY04A Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 22 January 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-03086 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 29 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 Nov 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 03, w/atchs.

                                   

AFBCMR BC-2003-03086

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, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 1 October 2001 through 28 February 2002 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

	It is further directed that, if the OPR is still a matter of record when the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Central Selection Board convenes, he be considered for promotion to the grade of LTC by a Special Selection Board for the CY04A Board.