RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04560 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 28 Sep 12 be changed to reflect a “Meets Standards” rating or the OPR be void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He submitted his request to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) without success and has exhausted available administrative remedies. He was marked as “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section IX, Performance Factors, Item 5, Judgment and Decisions, because he “failed to take corrective action as the aircraft commander in a Class A CV-22 Mishap.” The OPR is unjust because the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) convened after the mishap determined his lack of judgment was linked to a lack of formal training and visual reference guides. Section IV, Rater Overall Assessment, reflects “Rater was deployed, feedback not accomplished.” He and his rater were deployed to the same location and saw each other daily from Dec 11 to Jan 12. Additionally, they worked together upon his return from deployment and through the mishap period. There was ample time to conduct feedback in person. At no time was his judgment deficient, nor was he given an opportunity to correct the alleged deficiency. He takes responsibility for his actions as the aircraft commander but he was not given the tools necessary to exercise proper judgment which would have altered the outcome of the flight. The evidence of his lack of training is supported by the FEB’s Findings and Recommendations, dated 20 Nov 12. The board of three Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) command pilots ruled that his overall judgment was not in question. ? In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his referral OPR and rebuttal, FEB Findings and Recommendations and various other documents associated with his request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is on active duty in the Regular Air Force. On 13 Jun 12, he was the aircraft commander of a CV-22 aircraft that crashed, a Class A Mishap. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports, paragraph 1.10., Mishap and Event Classification, a mishap resulting in damages totaling $2,000,000 or more, a fatality or permanent total disability, destruction of a DOD aircraft, or permanent loss of primary mission capability of a space vehicle is considered a Class A Mishap. The FEB Findings and Recommendations, dated 20 Nov 12, determined he exhibited a lack of judgment as the aircraft commander by failing to fly conversion mode formation IAW with directions outlined in the CV-22 flight manual and by failing to take corrective action by either directing the mishap co-pilot to alter the aircraft position relative to the lead aircraft or taking control of the mishap aircraft and correcting its position so as to avoid the lead’s wake. The FEB determined the lack of judgment and improper assessment of his aircraft’s position was directly linked to a lack of formal training on how to fly formation in the conversion configuration as well as a lack of visual reference guides. The FEB concluded they did not believe his overall judgment to be in question, nor did they question his ability to continue in aviation service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial based on a lack of corroborating evidence and the presumed legitimacy of the OPR. To grant relief would be contrary to established Air Force instructions in that the evaluation is presumed accurate at the time it is accomplished and placed in the military personnel record. The applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB IAW AFI 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or injustice and denied the applicant’s request for relief. He contends the referral OPR should be removed due to the FEB recommending he continue aviation service, even after a Class A Mishap. According to the findings of the FEB, the applicant exhibited a lack of judgment as aircraft commander and as a result he was marked “Does Not Meet Standards” under the “Judgment and Decisions” block. Although the FEB concluded he continue his aviation service, it does not clear him from any administrative actions taken against him for the grave incident as the evaluators saw fit; specifically, the referral OPR which holds the applicant accountable for his actions. He has provided insufficient evidence to show the OPR was written inaccurately or unjustly. Moreover, a final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater, as well as a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander which served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure the report was given fair consideration IAW the established intent of the Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System and Air Force policies and procedures. He also contends that feedback was not accomplished within the reporting period, however, he confirms he was deployed with his rater and saw him daily; thus received day-to-day verbal feedback. A report is not erroneous or unfair because there was a lack of counseling or feedback per AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.10. Furthermore, AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.8, states that only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessment on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. The lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report. Therefore, this specific contention is not IAW established Air Force policy and procedures and is without any merit. He has not provided sufficient documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. It is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. In order to effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain, not only for support but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide information from the rating officials on the contested report. Without the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude that the report is accurate as written. Only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal of a report from an individual’s record. He has not substantiated the contested report was rendered inaccurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 Sep 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was provided to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 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- 2013-04560 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 19 Sep 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Aug 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 14.