RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03975
		INDEX CODE:  111.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) ending 20 January 2005 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is not a correct representation of his job performance but instead it’s a repercussion from the Mission Support Group Commander (MSG/CC).  He was trying to protect his squadron and airmen from the hostile work environment the MSG/CC created.  He had many successes as the commander of the 17th Security Forces Squadron (17 SFS).  He had many personal successes during this period including completing Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) while simultaneously working on a master’s degree.  He coached for a city recreation league, was active in the Civil Air Patrol, led men's Bible study, and facilitated a chapel sponsored financial class.  One of the toughest jobs he faced as a commander was notifying the parents of a deployed airman that their son had been critically injured.  It was the first security forces injury in Iraq and there were no guidelines on the process since he was not deceased.  The Wing Commander (WG/CC) requested he work directly with her through this process since the MSG/CC was not available the first day.  Even though he back briefed the MSG/CC on all conversations with the WG/CC, the MSG/CC continued to countermand the WG/CC’s directives and the MSG/CC indicated he should have done things differently.  The parents can testify about the class act put forth by the Air Force.  On another occasion, the MSG/CC ordered him to write an Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) on a departing master sergeant (MSgt).  The MSG/CC told him what rating to put on the report even though a report was not due.  After speaking with legal and the military personnel flight (MPF) to confirm he was correct, he told the MSG/CC he would not write an unjust and illegal report.  The MSG/CC dropped the issue but did not forget it.  This started the downward slope of reprisal against the 17 SFS, more specifically, him.  Sparked by concerns from a civilian’s IG complaint, the WG/CC ordered a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI).  A colonel from Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas was summoned to complete the investigation.  Even though the investigation was limited in scope, the colonel stated "the preponderance of evidence indicated the work environment (climate) established by the MSG/CC violated the AETC/CC policy on harassment."  According to the CDI the leadership style of the MSG/CC was consistent since taking command of the MSG.  The MSG/CC berated, cussed, browbeat, micromanaged and threatened his commanders to the extent he had rendered them useless/ineffective.  He created a work environment that was not conducive to professionalism.  There was no mentoring of squadron commanders as one would expect from a group commander.  Using Gestapo-like tactics, he ruled by fear, made work drudgery and was more worried about looking bad than fixing problems.  The commanders in MSG were so shell-shocked they did not want to take small problems to the MSG/CC, much less the big ones.  Any issues taken to the MSG/CC were always maximum pain for minimum gain.  Almost any commander in the group during this timeframe will provide similar feedback.  A few of them approached the MSG/CC on the environment he was creating and he subsequently berated them and kicked them out of the office.  While they remained loyal to him as their commander, they were not able to cover or change his leadership style.  This report should be expunged because of several reasons, one being the great disparity on his first OPR written by the MSG/CC and the second one written in 2005.  The second report is the result of bias the MSG/CC had against him and the SFS when he refused the MSG/CC’s illegal orders.  He confronted him on the issue and several other issues, including the environment he created, and he firmly believes his career suffered for it.  The 2005 report has no stratification or promotion statement and he had many successes.  Matched against the 2004 report signed by the same rater, it is an unfounded but clear regression.  The midterm performance feedback conducted 18 August 2004, stated there was little room for improvement.  There was no other written feedback provided to warrant the 20 January 2005 report.  The 2005 OPR has had a detrimental effect on his promotion opportunities.  The report is a direct reflection of him trying to take the proper action and confront an out-of-line commander directly on his improper behavior, improper/illegal orders, and the hostile environment he created.  He submitted a package to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to have the report expunged but it was denied since there was nothing derogatory in the report.  He has exhausted all other means of correcting this error.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal statement, documentation associated with the CDI and IG complaint, and other supporting statements.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force on 15 February 1993 and was progressively promoted to the grade of major effective and with a date of rank of 1 April 2003. 
The contested report ending 20 January 2005 was signed by his WG/CC 15 February 2005.  The applicant received “Meets Standards” on all six performance factors.  All the other reports in the applicant's record are checked “Meets Standards.”

He has two non-selections for promotion to lieutenant colonel beginning with the P0506C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the purpose of the appeal process is to correct errors or injustices, not to enhance an applicant’s chances for promotion.  Every report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it has, or may, impact promotion and/or career opportunities.  DPSIDEP is careful to keep the promotion and evaluation issues separated, and to focus on the evaluation report only.  Each case is reviewed for compliance with governing directives, and reviewed for any alleged injustices.  DPSIDEP reviewed the contested report and found it to be in compliance with current policy.  DPSIDEP states inadequate or the lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or the fairness of a report.  Evaluators must confirm they did not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.  The applicant must also supply specific information about the unfair evaluation so the board can make a reasonable judgment on appeal.  He provided neither.  An evaluation report is not erroneous or unjust because it is inconsistent with the previous evaluation.  A report evaluates performance for a specific period and reflects the ratee’s performance, conduct, and potential at that time.  The ability to function well during one reporting period can and may change during another reporting period.  DPSIDEP would not void a report simply because it is inconsistent with the previous report.  The applicant must prove the rater was in fact repercussive, that he was biased and that the bias affected his objectivity to a point that a fair and accurate report was impossible.  Unfortunately, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that the rater retaliated against him.  The evidence suggests he was gruff with everyone.  Disagreements in the workplace are not unusual and, in themselves, do not substantiate an evaluator cannot be objective.  DPSIDEP opines that subordinates are required to abide by their superior’s decision.  If there was a personality conflict between the applicant and the rater which was of such magnitude the rater could not be objective, DPSIDEP believes the additional rater/senior rater would have known about it and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicant’s report.  The applicant has not provided specific instances based on first-hand observation which substantiate that the relationship between him and his rater were strained to the point an objective evaluation was impossible.  The supporting documentation the applicant provided is not germane to the report in question; other than the applicant's allegations in his appeal, the evidence does not support that the OPR was inaccurate or unjust.  None of the statements submitted state the raters could not be objective in his assessment of the applicant's duty performance.  Nor would DPSIDEP be convinced of their ability to more accurately assess the applicant's performance considering they were not the individuals charged with performing this responsibility.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 8 February 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting corrective action.  In this respect, after a thorough review of the evidence presented we believe the applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the OPR in question is a true and accurate portrayal of his performance and demonstrated potential during the period in question.  While it may not have been confirmed that a personality conflict existed between the applicant and his supervisor, we do not find it unreasonable to believe there were differences between the two which may have hindered his supervisor's ability to objectively assess the applicant's performance.  Nevertheless, in consideration of all the circumstances of this case, we believe the benefit of any doubt in this matter should be resolved in the applicant's favor and we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

Pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 21 January 2004 through 20 January 2005, be declared void and removed from his records.  
It is further recommended that the corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the P0506A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board in which the OPR closing 20 January 2005 was a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03975 in Executive Session on 18 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-03975 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 November 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 28 January 2008.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 February 2008.