RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01243
								INDEX CODE:  111.03
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 October 2008

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Training Report (TR) for the period 16 January 2004 through 5 March 2004 be corrected by removing the statement “Capt --------- withdrew from the course because he was unwilling to accept his post-graduate W-prefix assignment to Korea” contained in the OTHER COMMENTS section of that report.

If the requested relief is granted, he be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY06B (11 September 2006) (P0406B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The statement in the OTHER COMMENTS section of the TR misrepresents the reason for his withdrawal from the training course.  The true reason for his withdrawal from the course is that he did not possess the necessary sensor background to be successful in this expert-level course.  He felt it was in his, and the Air Force’s, best interest to self eliminate and focus on a mission area more suited to his strengths and talents as demonstrated by his subsequent Officer Performance Reports (OPRs).

This was the pilot class of this course and he believes there was a lot of pressure on the course manager, who wrote the report, to produce graduates.  Of the four students that were admitted to the sensor course, only one successfully finished.  During his time as a student in the course, a personality conflict existed between himself and the course manager, and he believes the “optional comment” was added to the TR with the intent of reprisal for his withdrawing from the course.

He was not aware this TR was placed in his record because it was never in his base Military Personnel Flight (MPF) or unit records, and the TR was overlapped by his OPR following the course.  Upon review of his “as is” record just prior to his Major CSB, he discovered the OPR immediately following school had been altered to exclude the dates of the TR, and the TR was now part of his record maintained at AFPC.  He was concerned about the TR being a part of his official record, but did not believe it would endanger his opportunity for promotion.  He has been advised that the contested statement was the cause for his non-selection, despite his Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a personal statement, dated 13 April 2007, the TR for the period 16 January 2004 – 5 March 2004, a Course Instructor Student Mission Failure memorandum, dated 3 February 2004, a 116 ACW/XPP memorandum, dated 1 February 2007, his original OPR for the period 16 January 2004 through 15 January 2005, an altered OPR for the period 6 March 2004 through 15 January 2005, and a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the P0406B Major CSB.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) which was denied on 11 April 2007.  

He has one non-selection for promotion to the grade of major by the CY06B P0406B Major CSB.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO recommend denial of the requested relief.  They understand applicant’s desire to have the comment removed from the TR because of the promotion advantage; however, the report is not inaccurate or unfair simply because he believes it is.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.

Applicant failed to complete the course, and AFI 36-2406 requires that a TR be completed upon completion or interruption of, or elimination from formal training or education when the scheduled course length is eight weeks or more.  He failed to provide supporting/substantiated evidence to prove he did not withdraw due to the undesired assignment, and without validation from the evaluator, they can only conclude the report is accurate as written.

Applicant contends a personality conflict existed between himself and his rater.  In trainee-course manager relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a trainee must abide by a commandant’s policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or who require close instruction may believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, the conflict generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather than personal.  He has not provided any statements from his rating chain or official documentation to prove a personality conflict existed in this instance.  The letter of support and other extraneous documents he has provided are not germane to the TR in question, and the testimonial he submits failed to state the evaluator could not be objective in his assessment of applicant’s performance.  

Applicant also contends his evaluator rendered the contested TR in reprisal against him, but has failed to submit clear evidence to prove reprisal was a factor.  In order to substantiate a reprisal occurred, he must file a complaint with the IG or MEO, and include a copy of their summary and Report of Investigation (ROI) with the appeal.  He did not mention he filed any sort of official complaint with the IG or MEO, nor did he provide any substantial evidence that reprisal occurred.

Statements from the evaluator during the contested period are conspicuously absent.  To effectively challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the evaluators, not necessarily for support, but at least for clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide any such documentation.  Without benefit of these statements, they can only conclude the TR is accurate as written.

Applicant contends the OPR closing 15 January 2005 was incorrectly altered.  The TR reflects the period 16 January 2004 through 5 March 2004.  IAW AFI 36-2406, Table 3.1, Line 6, Note 4, “FROM Date:  Enter the day following the last report’s close-out date; or the day following close-out of a TR from a school of 20 weeks or more.”  TRs with a course length greater than 20 weeks impact the OPR dates, as they are considered stand alone reports and the dates must flow.  The prescribed course length is 23 weeks, regardless of the time actually required to complete the course.

The AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO evaluations are at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 June 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  Applicant responded by a letter dated 17 July 2007.  He took issue with the advisory statement that he did not provide supporting/substantiated evidence, and because of this, the report was accurate.  He pointed out that he provided a letter from the class leader who had first hand knowledge of the situation and who verifies the true reason for his withdrawal.  He also attached a memo, dated 23 February 2004, from an instructor of the course substantiating that he was on the verge of being eliminated solely based on poor academic performance, and asks that these two memos be accepted as evidence.

Per the advisory suggestion, he contacted the rater who signed the TR.  The rater wishes to leave the report as is and believes the contested statement was true at the time it was written.  The rater advised that he officially present his side of the story to the AFBCMR, and acknowledges that he should have been allowed the opportunity to officially respond to the comment before it became a part of his record as the assignment line makes this a referral report.  There is nothing to substantiate that he refused an assignment, and this is purely a subjective statement.

He also states he has no issue with the date correction to the OPR closing 15 January 2005, and believes AFPC misunderstood his intent.  He included this documentation to explain why it took so long to take this action.  This date change did cause his base and unit records to be out of sync, but he understands it was completely legal and has no contention with this issue.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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.  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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant failed to complete the course, and the governing directive requires that a TR be completed upon completion or interruption of, or elimination from formal training or education when the scheduled course length is eight weeks or more.  Although applicant contends a personality conflict existed between himself and his rater, he has not provided any statements from his rating chain or official documentation to prove a personality conflict existed in this instance and the evaluator could not be objective in his assessment of applicant’s performance.  Applicant also contends his evaluator rendered the contested TR in reprisal against him, but has failed to submit clear evidence to prove reprisal was a factor, and did not provide any substantial evidence that reprisal occurred.  Additionally, the rater of the contested report has stated he wishes to leave the report as is and believes the contested statement was true at the time it was written, and no evidence has been submitted that the report is not accurate as written.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

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-2007-01243 in Executive Session on 2 August 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, dated 13 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO, dated 6 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair