RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02441
								INDEX CODE:  111.05
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 1 September 1998 through 23 July 1999 be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor was personally biased against him, and the action taken by the supervisor was severe for the circumstances and obvious abnormalities.  

When comparing this OPR to the rest of his OPRs, he believes it is indeed an injustice and does not reflect his capabilities.

He submitted an appeals package once before, but the appeal was attached to the OPR in question rather than correct [sic] the injustice.  It was only recently that he was told by his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that a mistake was made, and he should appeal to the Board to have the OPR removed from his record for bias.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a letter from the 86th WG/CV at the time, outlining the events detailed in the OPR, a letter from the Area Defense Counsel questioning the reason and rationale of the OPR, and a letter from a retired major providing background information concerning the unit’s environment.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The contested report is a Change of Reporting Official (CRO) OPR for the period 1 September 1998 through 23 July 1999, that was referred to the applicant on 28 July 1999.  Although the applicant was rated as Meets Standards in all Performance Factors in Section V of the report, the report contains comments by the rater in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, which make the OPR a referral report.  Both the additional rater and reviewer concurred with the report as written.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1995 follows:

		PERIOD ENDING				EVALUATION

		31 Aug 95					Meets Standards
		31 Aug 96					Meets Standards
		31 Aug 97					Meets Standards
		31 Aug 98					Meets Standards
	*	23 Jul 99				Meets Standards (Referral)
		24 Jul 00					Meets Standards
		24 Jul 01					Meets Standards
24 Jul 02					Meets Standards
13 May 03					Meets Standards
13 May 04					Meets Standards
13 May 05					Meets Standards
13 May 06					Meets Standards
13 May 07					Meets Standards

*  Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPS1DEP recommends denial unless the applicant can provide concrete evidence that the rater was, in fact, biased against him, in which case he can resubmit.

Although the application was submitted in a timely manner, the appeal is eight years after the contested report.  The applicant did not file an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, this appeal was forwarded to the ERAB for review and they recommended denial because he did not prove the report was inaccurate.

With the exception of one additional statement, this application contains the same documentation that was attached to the original OPR appeal, and this is the same documentation that both the additional rater and reviewer for the contested report had the opportunity to review before the OPR became a matter of record.  The one additional statement he provided was written by his then flight commander, however, the statement does little to substantiate that there was a bias between the applicant and his supervisor. 

IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.2, one of the responsibilities of the additional rater and reviewer is to ensure the report is accurate, unbiased, and not inflated, and if the rater was actually biased, the additional rater and/or the reviewer would have questioned the report.  Additionally, the OPR is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it was rendered.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants removal of the report from the applicant’s record.  The burden of proof is on him, and one additional statement did not substantiate his claim.

The AFPC/DPS1DEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 12 October 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice to warrant voiding the contested OPR and removing it from his records.  In this respect, we note the applicant was rated by his rater as Meets Standards in all Performance Factors in Section V of the contested report; however, the report became a referral report based on comments made by his rater in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, pertaining to two isolated incidents of relatively minor significance.  After reviewing the applicant’s complete records and the supporting evidence that has been submitted, the Board is persuaded that sufficient doubt has been raised as to the accuracy of the contested report, and we do not believe the applicant should be penalized for these two relatively insignificant, isolated incidents.  Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.  

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1 September 1998 through 23 July 1999, be declared void and removed from his records

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-02441 in Executive Session on 4 December 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPS1DEP, dated 22 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 07.