RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03666
		INDEX CODE:  131.01
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF IMT 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period of 8 July 2004 through 7 July 2005 and prepared for the Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be replaced with a corrected OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR rendered during the period in question is technically accurate in most respects; however, it does not reflect an accurate assessment of his performance and overall contributions to Headquarters Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) due to a personality conflict.  In addition, the current OPR on file does not contain his correct duty Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 11H4E. 

In support of his application, applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of his original OPR and corrected OPR, letters of support from his additional rater, reviewer and co-workers. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major. 

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C).  He was also considered by the CY07B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  The results of the CY07B LtCol CSB have not yet been released.

The applicant submitted an appeal regarding the OPR to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). The ERAB denied the application because the board was not convinced the report was inaccurate or unjust based on the evidence provided. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states the appeal process is to correct errors and injustices and none were found in the applicant's case. 

Applicant complains about a personality conflict, however, the evidence provided did not support his allegation. A professional disagreement on the need for combat search and rescue (CSAR) to be in AFSOC may have existed, but no personality conflict existed. He provided several character references and a reaccomplished report signed by all the original evaluators with supporting memorandums from each of them. The additional rater states he was aware there were problems between the applicant and rater however he would not let that impact his judgment. DPSIDEP believes that since the additional rater was aware of the problems, he could have made corrections at the time the report was being accomplished - not two years after the fact. In addition, there are two character references from his peers that mention tension between the applicant and his rater however the tension was described more as professional disagreements rather than a personality conflict. In worker-supervisor relationships, some disagreements are likely to occur since a worker must abide by a supervisor's policies and decisions. Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased; however, the conflict generated by this personal attention is usually professional rather than personal. To convince the board that an evaluator was unfavorably biased, the applicant must cite specific examples of the conflict or bias. Provide firsthand evidence that clearly shows how the conflict prevented the evaluator from preparing a fair and accurate report. If other evaluators support an appeal because they were unaware of a conflict at the time, they should provide specific information which leads them to believe the report is not an objective assessment. The applicant must provide factual, specific, and substantiated information from credible officials that is based on firsthand observation or knowledge. As presented, the applicant's case is based purely on unsubstantiated conjecture that there was a personality conflict between him and his rater. 

The applicant contends he asked to see a draft of the OPR to ensure it was a proper reflection of his performance but was denied. Unfortunately, Air Force policy at the time the report was written prohibited a rater from providing a copy or showing the report to the ratee prior to it becoming a matter of record. Therefore, there was no injustice committed by the rater denying the applicant's request. 

The applicant contends the Duty Air Force Specialty (DAFSC) is incorrect, however he provided no evidence to support his contention. DPSIDEP states that many applicants have a tendency to confuse their DAFSC with their Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) or even their Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC). It is not uncommon for an individual to hold one PAFSC and be working in his DAFSC; in fact this is usually the case. However, if the applicant is convinced the DAFSC is incorrect; he must provide supporting documentation such as a copy of the manning document which shows he was actually sitting in a position where the DAFSC was in fact 11H4E, versus Q11H4E. Unfortunately however, he has provided nothing but his statement. 

AFPC/DPSIDEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of SSB consideration but concurs with the recommendation from AFPC/DPSIDEP. 

AFSC/DPSOO's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his appeal, the applicant states an OPR written in this manner sends the message that he was a below average officer who did little or nothing during the previous year except for a brief four-month deployment. Nothing could be further from the truth. OPRs are the backbone of an officer's career--the primary record of an individual's contributions to the Air Force and an indicator of future potential. If allowed to remain in place, this weak OPR will negatively affect every aspect of his career for years to come. If, after reviewing all the evidence, the Board is still not convinced an injustice has occurred in his case, he asks the Board to consider one final thing. Should the decision be made to replace his current 2005 OPR, no harm is done to the Air Force other than a few man hours of work to make administrative changes to his permanent record. Conversely, if the Board decides not to replace his current 2005 OPR, unwarranted damage will undoubtedly be done to his military career. He believes the Board will agree that this more than meets the definition of an injustice.  The applicant has provided additional letters of support from supervisors and co-workers.

Applicant's complete 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 an error or injustice warranting favorable consideration of the applicant’s request. The evidence provided by the applicant and the supporting documents he presented as part of his rebuttal to the Air Force advisories are more than sufficient to show that the OPR in question was not a fair and accurate representation of his performance during the rating period.  While we are sensitive to DPSIDEP’s statement in support of denying his request based on the stringent rules that govern OPRs, we were ultimately persuaded by the support provided from the additional and senior raters.  Perhaps most convincing to us was the support provided by his rater at the time.  There was no evidence provided to indicate his rating chain acted for any reason other than the ones they presented in their letters.  Consequently, we conclude that the applicant’s records should be changed to substitute the revised OPR and to afford him SSB consideration for the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Therefore, in view of the above findings, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF IMT 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 8 July 2004 through 7 July 2005, be declared void and removed from his records and that the attached OPR be accepted for file in its place.

It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board and for any subsequent boards in which the above correction was not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number    BC-2007-03666 in Executive Session on 7 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 14 Dec 07.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 11 Jan 08.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 08.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 29 Feb 08, w/atchs.