RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05444 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His official military record be corrected to reflect his time as the 171 Security Forces Squadron Commander from 27 November 1995 through 21 March 2003. 2. His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) with attachments, rendered for the period 1 January 2002 through 31 December 2002, be removed from his records. 3. The duplicate OPR rendered for the period 1 January 2002 through 31 December 2002, be removed from his records. 4. His OPRs rendered for the periods 1 January 2003 through 31 December 2003 and 1 January 2004 through 31 October 2004 be removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His command time earned is not reflected in his official record. He acted as, and exercised the authority of, the Squadron Commander while he was assigned to the 171 Security Forces Squadron. In Feb 1995 he was moved from his position as Mission Support Group Executive Officer to be the Security Forces Squadron Executive Officer. This move was predicated on the belief that his prior security police experience and personal credibility as an officer would bring some stability to a squadron that was experiencing significant internal strife as a result of the recent merger of two separate units. 2. In November 1995, he accepted a 5-year Active Guard Reserve (AGR), fulltime assignment as the 171 Security Police Squadron Commander. The AGR order clearly shows his duty title as “Security Police (SP) Commander.” However, unbeknownst to him, he was placed in the Major (Operations Officer) position. He was unaware that the Lt Col (SP Commander) position was reassigned to the Wing Staff and an officer who had no affiliation with the SP Squadron was getting the command credit. 3. It is his firm belief that the referral OPR is unfairly prejudicial and was driven by a conflict in personality with his, then, supervisor, Col S, and the personal agenda of others. A close examination of his record before and after this OPR will show a highly motivated and engaged officer who cares about his airmen and clearly understands the complexities of the Security Forces career field. 4. He wishes to address the golfing incident, because he believes this was the key event that triggered Col S's determination to build a case against him. The fact that this incident shows up in a Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 15 Jan 2003, in his removal from command letter dated 21 Mar 2003, and again in his OPR for that period suggests an unreasonable emphasis being placed on this one isolated incident. He would further point out that the manner in which Col S describes the incident in her various written statements grossly distorts the actual facts. She portrays his decision that day as one of choosing to play golf rather than greeting returning airmen; suggesting a total disregard for his airmen and a willingness on his part to put his personal pleasures before his responsibilities. This is not true and is a gross misstatement of the realities of that day. The truth is, when he and SMSgt B were made aware of the scheduled return time for the returning airmen, they were five hours away and involved in a munitions inventory. It was essential that they complete this inventory before returning. The inventory took several hours as it involved visiting multiple sites and physically counting assigned munitions. By the time they were finished and departed for home, all of the returning airmen had been safely accounted for and had departed the base. Even if they had dropped everything, abandoned the munitions inventory, and returned to the base at once, they would likely have missed everyone. Additionally there were other squadron and wing leaders in place to welcome the airmen home. 5. Since receiving the referral OPR and moving on to a position at the National Guard Bureau he has been very successful and has positively affected the lives and careers of countless airmen. Several months ago he was honored to have been selected as the next Division Chief for ANG Security Forces; an 06 position. Unfortunately, his promotion package did not clear AFPC because of this referral OPR and he was subsequently moved back to his position as Deputy Division Chief. He respectfully requests that the board remove this OPR and all the attached documentation from his official record. 6. He also requests the removal of OPRs rendered for the periods 1 Jan 2003 to 31 Dec 2003 and 1 Jan 2004 to 31 Oct 2004, from his official records. He had insufficient supervision by his rater of record; Col M. His supervisor for the period 1 Jan 2003 to 21 March 2003 was Col S until he began a 90-day TDY at the Air National Guard Readiness Center (ANGRC) which was extended to 31 Dec 2003. His ANGRC supervisor was the Security Forces Director. In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal statement, copies of support documents to include a letter of recommendation and witness statements and documents extracted from his military personnel record (MPR). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving as an Air National Guard commissioned officer in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. NGB/A1PP recommends partial approval. A1PP states the applicant provided a copy of Special Order AC-16, dated 18 November 1995, indicating he accepted an AGR position with a UMD duty title of Security Police Commander. Numerous OPRs indicate duties, responsibilities, mission impact as well as other comments reflecting that of a commander. 2. Although there is no documentation noting the applicant as the official commander of the 171 Security Police Squadron, the removal of command confirmed he was actively serving as the commander and exercising UCMJ authority over the unit along with the provisions noted in the Air Force Officer Classification Directory. They recommend granting the applicant credit as commander of the 171 Security Police Squadron beginning on 27 November 1995, the date his AGR orders took affect and terminating on 21 March 2003, the date he was removed from command. 3. On 15 January 2003, the applicant received a letter of counseling (LOC) from his supervisor, Colonel S, indicating he demonstrated several examples of poor judgment or leadership. In March 2003, he was removed from command by Colonel S. Subsequently, he received a referral OPR in August 2003 which was then filed in his records. They cannot substantiate there was any injustice in his receiving a negative evaluation. He received a LOC prior to his removal from command and referral OPR. Colonel S appears to have identified her concern prior to these two actions, therefore, they believe it was within her purview to take the actions against the applicant. 4. Additionally, the 171 Air Refueling Wing Commander (ARW/CC) received the applicant’s rebuttal to the negative evaluation and after serious consideration, believed Colonel S’s comments should remain as is and stated he did not have the authority to arbitrarily change her input, nor would be it appropriate if he did. From a procedural standpoint, the 171 ARW/CC took the appropriate steps. Per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, paragraph 1.10.5.2.5, “ANG AGR personnel will forward the rebuttal comments and any attachments through their full-time chain of command to the Adjutant General.” They contacted the Human Resources Office and confirmed the Adjutant General was aware of the referral report in addition to the removal from command. Therefore, they recommend the referral OPR not be removed from the applicant’s record. The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. In his response, the applicant reiterates his contention that the referral OPR contains comments that are factually inaccurate, inappropriate, and driven by personality. He further states that he firmly believes he was unjustly treated during this period and that this mistreatment was allowed to happen because of the lack of oversight by the 171 ARW/CC, who was on an extended deployment at the time. He additionally believes that when this issue was brought to his attention in August of 2003 he failed to do a proper investigation into the actual facts surrounding the situation. His handwritten notes on email correspondence suggest that he had questions, but none of the individuals who had direct knowledge of the events were ever interviewed by the 171 ARW/CC. It is his belief that the 171 ARW/CC did not want to appear unsupportive of Col S whom he had placed in charge while he was away. Furthermore, it is his belief that the 171 ARW/CC assumed that he would be picked up by the Air National Guard Readiness Center, as he was routinely receiving very positive updates from his supervisor, Col M, at that time. 2. He was advised by his supervisors, Col M and Lt Col D, that he needed to just keep doing his job and get five good OPRs and that would bury the bad one. This proved to be true as he worked his way up to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel. But, when he was selected, some 10 years later, as the Director of Security Forces (an 06 position), that misconception caught up with him when his package did not pass the colonel's board at AFPC and he was forced to step down from that assignment. In a summary of his response, the applicant highlights key discrepancies that should be noted in his case. The 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice concerning the applicant’s requests for his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods 1 January 2003 through 31 December 2003 and 1 January 2004 through 31 October 2004 to be removed from his records. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this portion of the application. 4. Notwithstanding our determination above, sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. With regard to the applicant’s request for his record to reflect his time as the Security Forces Squadron Commander, we note his OPRs indicate duties, responsibilities, and comments reflecting that of a commander in spite of his duty title of Security Forces Executive Officer. Moreover, the removal of command action confirmed he was effectively serving as the commander and exercising Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authority over the unit. Based on the applicant’s Special Order AC-16, dated 28 November 1995, indicating he accepted an AGR position with a UMD duty title of Security Police Commander, we find the evidence sufficient to resolve this matter in the applicant’s favor. With regard to the applicant’s request to remove his referral OPR, we note the applicant’s allegations, that the OPR is factually inaccurate, inappropriate, and driven by a personality conflict with his rater. His allegation that he was unjustly treated by the acting wing commander, his rater, during this period because of the lack of oversight by the wing commander, who was on an extended deployment at the time is also noted. The applicant provided statements from senior commissioned and noncommissioned officers showing that his quality of performance of duty was considerably better than he was given credit for on the referral OPR. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence setting forth the applicant's alleged deficiencies or that he was provided midterm feedback to address the deficiencies as required by the applicable Air Force Instruction. Given the unequivocal support from senior Air National Guard officers and NCOs who were in positions to directly observe his performance, and having no basis to question their integrity, we believe a reasonable doubt has been established as to whether or not the OPR closing 31 December 2002, is a true and accurate assessment of his performance. Additionally, based on the evidence provided we believe that a personality conflict may have existed between the applicant and his rater that hindered that individual's ability to objectively assess the applicant's performance. We note as well, that the referral OPR was written by the same rater who perpetuated the incorrect duty title on the applicant’s OPRs over an extended period of time but, contradictorily, acknowledged his role as commander by taking official action to remove him from command. The applicant requested that a duplicate version of the referral OPR be voided and removed from his military records. Subsequent to a review of the documents contained in the AFPC Automated Records Management (ARMS) Database there is only one official version of the applicant’s referral OPR on file in his Military Personnel Records (MPR). In consideration of all of the circumstances of this case and in an effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, we recommend his records be corrected as 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: a. His duty title of "SF Executive Officer" be removed from his duty history and changed to "Commander" effective 27 November 1995 and ending 21 March 2003. b. The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, and all corresponding attachments, rendered for the period 1 January 2002 through 31 December 2002, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05444: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 8 Feb 2012, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Mar 2013.