RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03956 INDEX CODE: 110.03, 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the period of 11 Jun 05 through 10 Jun 06 and 11 Jun 06 though 15 Dec 06 be reaccomplished. 2. His Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping (FS) Board be reaccomplished so that he can be retained. 3. He be reinstated as an officer of the United States Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The OPRs used to prepare the RRF contained inaccurate information. Guidance was not adhered to in determining force shaping ranking for both core AFSC and his overall ranking, resulting in a biased, discriminatory assessment. His ranking was based upon marital status, and inaccuracies and inconsistencies in his OPRs and RRF. His commander failed to include crucial training information in his RRF. His OPRs and group commander endorsements do not appear to be consistent with the force shaping evaluation submitted to the wing commander for his final review and ranking. He did not write a letter to the Board because one of his evaluators said that he was going to fix “the situation” before the OPR became an issue. In support of his request, applicant provided copies of documents submitted with his DD Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports appeal to include a Memorandum to the Force Shaping Board, AF IMT 102, Inspector General, Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint Registration, contested OPR dated 15 Dec 06, a substitute OPR, contested OPR dated 10 Jun 06, contested AF IMT 3538, Retention Recommendation, dated 8 Jan 07, a revised AF IMT 3538, a copy of the Aircraft Maintenance Office, 21AX, Career Field Education and Training Plan, an AF Form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action, dated 20 Sep 07, IG Response, two Training Reports, and a letter from Congressman XXXXXXXXX. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 May 04, applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the Air Force. He served on active duty from 11 Jun 04 until 29 Sep 07, in AFSC 21A3, Aircraft Maintenance. He was considered by the FY07 FS Board for line officers in overage career fields (CORE AFSCs) in the 2004 accession year group and Navigator (12R), Air Battle Manager (13B), Space and Missile (13S), and Developmental Engineer (62E) fields in the 2003 year group. The FY07 FSB also considered Judge Advocates whose dates of rank to captain were in 2003. The RRF was accomplished on 8 Jan 07. On 18 Jan 07, he requested his RRF be changed; however, his evaluators would not make the changes. He did not write a letter to the FY07 FS Board. On 12 Mar 07, he met the FY07 Officer FS Board. The results of the FY07 FS board were released on 2 May 07, and the applicant was not selected for retention. On 29 Sep 07, he was involuntarily released from the Air Force by the FY07 Force Shaping Board. He completed an AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports on 26 Nov 07, but he never submitted it to the ERAB. He is currently serving as a traditional guardsman with the Georgia Air National Guard (GA ANG). ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to reaccomplish his 10 Jun 06 OPR, his 15 Dec 06 OPR, and his RRF for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping Board. DPSIDEP stated the applicant contends he made an attempt, although post-board, to get the contested evaluations corrected but could not get the support of his evaluators, other than changing the word “shows” to “showed.” However, DPSIDEP does not have statements from his evaluators stating they agree with this. The evaluations were prepared IAW governing directives, and no errors or injustices were found in the processing of these reports. However, with the concurrence of the evaluators, they would support changing the word “shows” to “showed” on his 15 Dec 06 OPR. Although the applicant included two AF Forms 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, he never submitted them to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The evidence shows he attempted to get support from his evaluators and when they refused, he did not submit them. Now that he has separated he is no longer eligible to apply through the ERAB. The FS guidance provided not only the opportunity to elect voluntary separation, but also the opportunity to appeal any evaluations and/or submit a letter to the Board prior to the 12 Mar 07 FS board. Eligible FS board officers were required to have their RRF in hand NLT 15 Jan 07. The applicant had his before 11 Jan 07, because he stated he tried to meet with the group commander about the inconsistencies, and that the group commander explained to him why he was ranked last. He was well aware of his standing as early as Jan 07, and with the exception of discussing the alleged inconsistencies with his evaluators, he took no action to appeal any of his OPRs or the RRF at that time. The applicant states, referring to his IG complaint, that one of the evaluators said he was going to fix the situation before the OPR became an issue, therefore he did not write a letter to the board. However, after reviewing the referenced attachment, it does not state exactly what was going to be fixed, and it mentions a meeting that did not take place. This again was post FS board, the deadline for letters to the board was NLT 11 Mar 07. The applicant contends that Air Force Guidance was not adhered to in determining Force Shaping ranking for both core AFSC and overall ranking resulting in a biased and discriminatory assessment based upon martial status. Reference the 15 Dec 06 OPR. The applicant requests that his 15 Dec 06 OPR be reaccomplished; requesting the last line in Section VII be changed: FROM: APPLICANT is a loyal officer and continually shows progression towards basic certification-challenge him. TO: APPLICANT is a loyal officer and has exceeded basic certification well ahead of his peers-challenge him! He contends the commander failed to document crucial training before the 12 Mar 07 FS board, that he was upgraded for basic certification on 13 Dec 06. However, his Dec 06 OPR states he “continually shows progression toward basic certification.” Unfortunately, however, the 13 Dec 06 entry does not state the applicant was upgraded. It states, (paraphrased), that he was instructed to finish the career field education and training (CFETP) requirements so he can be upgraded in Dec 06; that he was to provide the transcribed CFETP to the trainer that week; and should have all the requirements for upgrading completed that week. There are no entries to indicate the applicant in fact completed the requirements that week, and there is no entry indicating he was in fact upgraded that week. Completing the requirements and being upgraded are two different things. In Jun 07, the group commander reviewed the applicant’s CFETP and found that the applicant was actually never upgraded; although the applicant may have completed all the requirements, it was the squadron commander’s responsibility to make the final determination to upgrade him or not. The AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, accomplished on 20 Sep 07, with an effective date of 13 Dec 06, was not signed by any of the commanders involved and the applicant provided no justification from the commanders as to why the AF Form 2096 was prepared so late. He also provided a Jan 07 slide that showed he had completed all the training requirements before all of his peers; just because he finished first, does not mean he finished best. Additionally, it does not show that he was actually upgraded. However, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, and if directed by the AFBCMR, they would agree to changing the word “shows” to “showed,” on the Dec 06 OPR; however, whether the change is made or not, it does not make the report inaccurate or unjust based on the information known by the additional rater at the time the report was signed. Reference the 10 Jun OPR. The applicant requests that his 10 Jun 06 OPR be reaccomplished; requesting the last line in Section VII be changed: FROM: APPLICANT is an up-and-coming MX officer—showing good progress toward basic certification/fully qualified TO: Outstanding progress has been made towards basic certification requirements; DAU requirements are next He contests the statement, “showing good progress toward basic certificate/fully qualified” made by the group commander/ additional rater on his Jun 06 OPR. He states that it is inconsistent with the 11 Mar 06 entry made in his CFETP by his direct supervisor which stated: “Outstanding progress has been made towards 3-level requirements. Working on education square was discussed, specifically DAU course.” Unfortunately, the statement annotated in his CFETP was only one statement, made on 11 Mar 06, by an individual who was not in the applicant’s rating chain. The report is not erroneous or unjust because the wording conflicts with the CFETP. The CFETP entry was based on the trainer’s perception of the applicant at that particular moment, and based on the applicant’s training alone; whereas the OPR was the additional rater’s perception based on many factors. Reference the RRF for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping Board. The applicant requests that his RRF for this board be reaccomplished; requesting that the last line in Section V be changed: FROM: “Held flight commander job in 3 largest MXS flights; performance lags that of his peers but shows slow and steady improvement.” TO: “Commanded four maintenance sqdn flts/one AMXS flight; leadership, initiative and performance far exceeds that of his peers!” He contends the RRF was prepared based on inaccurate information; crucial training was not documented, that his AFSC should have been reflected as 21A1 or 21A3 versus 21A; and that his Aircraft Maintenance Officer Course Training Report (TR) rendered for the period 14 Jun 04 through 6 Oct 04 was the focal point for his RRF rating. All his OPRs indicate that he meets standards and that none of the OPRs state that any type of his performance is lagging. MPFM 06-82, Attachment 2, paragraph 16a, states “The DAFSC/CORE ID block should have the 3-digit CORE AFSC as reflected on the DQHB.” The AFSC on the RRF was in compliance with the governing directives. Additionally, the complete AFSC was available to the board via the Officer Selection Brief (OSB), which the applicant was required to review and make any necessary corrections to prior to the board. The applicant states he made an attempt, although post-board, to get the contested evaluations corrected but could not get the support of his evaluators, other than changing the word “shows” to “showed.” However, they do not have statements from the evaluators stating they would agree to that; the statement is made by the applicant. Since he could not get their support, this seems to infer the evaluations are exactly how the evaluators intended. The evaluators have to look at the applicant’s entire career, then write and make the ranking based on the entire record during the officer’s entire career. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. HQ AFPC/DPSOSS recommends denial of applicant’s request to reaccomplish the RRF. DPSOSS found no errors or injustices in the processing of the applicant’s RRF. The RRF was completed in accordance with the governing directives. The complete DPSOSS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant non-concurs with both of the Air Force evaluations. He states, “Do you really think his prior squadron commander is going to write a statement saying that he was the logical choice for the FS Board because of his marital status, and admit that he did not follow established guidance and Air Force policy?” His Wing commander never did follow up to get to the bottom of this and fix the problem. Additionally, His IG complaint was not handled properly. On 13 Dec 06, he met all the requirements for his upgrade. He did finish before his peers and some of his supervisors, and he is the best. His squadron commander stated that the first AF IMT 2096 was lost. He watched him sign the second AF IMT 2096, and then it was lost, and the third AF IMT 2096 was signed and input into the computer system. He did not know the Dec 06 OPR was being created; it was out of cycle in preparation for the FS board. Along with his rebuttal the applicant provided a statement from his father. His father states that to infer his son’s performance was mediocre was totally uncalled for and certainly not even close to being true. His son gave the Air Force 100% and yes, was a little stubborn at times, took on professional risks and called the shots the way he saw them. In summary, he guesses all lieutenants are expected to be experts in the personnel career field. Lieutenants are just starting to master their respective career paths and they are still very vulnerable to their surroundings. They need mentoring and experienced guidance from their supervisors. They certainly do not need to be sacrificial lambs for an ill advised Air Force personnel policy, called Force Shaping. Do what is right and reinstate his son. Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 opinions and recommendations 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. 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-2007-03956 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03956 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 07, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 27 Feb 08. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOSS, dated 18 Apr 08. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 08. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 08, w/atchs.