RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00883
		INDEX CODE:  111.00
		COUNSEL:  None
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Sep 23, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF Form 707A, Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period ending 14 May 99, be permanently removed from his records. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Security Forces Squadron Commander selection process was new and broken in 1998.  

The rating in the report was unjust.  It was wrong in 1999 and time has not healed the wound.  Correcting this injustice is the right thing to do.

He was told an assignment to San Antonio, TX, would be a three-year tour.  After being on station for about seven months, he was forced to put his name on a list that resulted in a short notice permanent change of station (PCS) move.

He fought back and suffered the consequences.  He eventually gave up and decided to retire quietly when eligible.  He now regrets that decision.

His situation resulted in an Air Force level change in Security Forces that required at least one year time on station prior to becoming eligible for PCS.  This change was a direct result of him fighting back.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested report, a bullet background paper, an acknowledgement letter, a copy of a letter to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, copies of his OPRs closing out in 1998 and 2000, respectively, a copy of his AF Form 724A, Field Grade Officer Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 18 Nov 99, and an e-mail from AFSFC/CV. 

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

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired on 31 Oct 02 in the grade of lieutenant colonel, after honorably serving for 20 years and 11 days.
	
A resume of his OPRs follows:

	CLOSEOUT DATE	OVERALL RATING

	  12 Jul 93	Meets Standards
 	  12 Jul 94	Meets Standards
	  21 Jun 95	Meets Standards
	  14 May 96 	Meets Standards	
	  14 May 97 	Meets Standards		
	  14 May 98 	Meets Standards
	  14 May 99	Referral Report
	  14 May 00	Meets Standards
	  14 May 01	Meets Standards
	  14 May 02	Meets Standards
			
On 22 Jun 99, the applicant’s vice commander notified him of his referral report.  Specifically, the ratings of “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section V, Performance Factors of the AF Form 707A and comments made in Section VIII, Additional Raters Overall Assessment of the AF Form 707A, caused the report to be a referral report.  The comments referenced the applicant’s tendencies to place personal interest above the Air Force needs in the assignment process.  Additionally, the applicant was given 10 days to comment on the report and informed he could appeal the report under AFI, 36-2401, Correction of Airman and Officer Evaluation Reports.

On 24 Jun 99, the applicant provided rebuttal comments regarding his referral report.  He stated he believed his report was downgraded due to him cancelling his assignment to Minot AFB, ND.  He further stated that going to Minot AFB would have had disastrous consequences on his life.  When no one in his chain of command would help him out of the assignment, he contacted his future supervisor at Minot to cancel the assignment and explained why the assignment would not be a good move for him.  The supervisor agreed by promptly cancelling the applicant’s assignment.

The applicant contended he never implied in any way he would not go to Minot.  He stated he would not hesitate to go, as evidenced by him signing for and accepting his PCS assignment shortly after receiving it.  He further stated his only guilt was in asking a fair question based on what he believed to be an unjust situation.  Additionally, he asked the question, “How can asking someone to cancel an assignment result in a UIF, LOR, and a referral OPR?”  He lastly asked why was he being punished for standing up for what he believed.

The records do not indicate if his comments were received and acknowledged.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be dismissed on the basis of timeliness because he exceeded the three year time limit set forth in AFI 36-2306, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  The applicant waited eight years to file and took no action on the claim before that.  The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  He has inexcusably delayed his appeal providing no explanation.  Clearly, the alleged errors upon which he relies have been discoverable since the alleged errors occurred.

Additionally, he has failed to prove an injustice.  The OPR is not inaccurate or unjust simply because the applicant believes it is.  He has provided nothing more than unsubstantiated conjecture in an attempt to validate his claim.

The applicant received an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) during the reporting period.  

The rater contends he tried to calm senior leadership by writing an inaccurate report, hoping to divert the possible reporting chain actions of a referral report.  If the rater believed the applicant deserved a glowing report he should have “gone to bat” for him and made the comments he felt were appropriate.  AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, paragraph 3.3.2, outline established procedures for evaluators to consider differences.  The additional rater made the referral comments on the OPR.  

To effectively challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain, not only the support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the additional rater and reviewer of the contested OPR.  In the absence of information from the evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.  It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  We contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  The simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.  You must prove the report is erroneous or unjust based on its content.

It is not reasonable to compare one report covering a certain period of time with another report covering a different period of time.  The OPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance.

Relating the ratings on the OPR to the markings on the performance feedback worksheet is an inappropriate comparison and is inconsistent with the officer evaluation system.  The purpose of the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the rating period in question.  It also provides the ratee the opportunity to improve performance, if necessary, before the report is written.  

The complete evaluation of AFPC/DPPPEP 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 May 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-00883 in Executive Session on 19 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/Atchs, dated 20 Mar 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 May 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair