RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-04756 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 3 June 2009 through 6 October 2009 (Ratee acknowledgement on 10 December 2009), be voided and removed from his record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His 6 October 2009 OPR was unjust due to the fact that it did not conform to the Air Force Instruction (AFI) governing officer and enlisted evaluations because it was subjective, and failed to substantiate conduct that fails to meet Air Force leadership standards. These inequities adversely affected the fair execution of the OPR process. In addition, the OPR is unjust because it is inconsistent with extensive informal leadership feedback. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the contested OPR; and, letters of support and appreciation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was released from active duty effective 31 May 2010 and voluntarily retired in the grade of colonel (O-6) effective 1 June 2010. He served 24 years and 3 days on active duty. According to a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI), dated 8 October 2009, the applicant was admonished and administratively relieved of his position as the 11th Wing Commander, Bolling Air Force Base, District of Washington, effective 6 October 2009, as a result of allegations of misconduct. He received a referral OPR for the period 3 June 2009 through 6 October 2009, which indicated he did not meet standards. The applicant provided a rebuttal to the Vice Chief of Staff (AF/CV) in response to the referral OPR; however, the AF/CV concurred with the rater’s evaluation. The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 9 Jun 00 (Lt Col)) Meets Standards (MS) 9 Jun 01 MS 3 Jun 02 MS 2 Jun 03 Education/Training Report 2 Jun 04 MS 2 Jun 05 MS 2 Jun 06 (Col) MS 2 Jun 07 MS 2 Jun 08 MS 2 Jun 09 MS 6 Oct 09* Does Not Meet Standards * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPO recommends denial. DPO states that when the applicant was given a referral OPR, he was given ample time to respond to the report as prescribed by AFI 36-2406. He appealed to the Vice Chief of Staff, who concurred with the rater’s decision to mark “Does Not Meet Standards;” therefore, making it a referral OPR. Although the applicant says the referral report was unjust because all the previous feedback was positive and reassuring, the rater lost confidence in his ability to lead sometime after that particular feedback was given. DPO indicates that with regard to the OPR being unjust because it was inconsistent with extensive informal leadership feedback, specifically, no formal feedback was ever conducted or documented, the AFI states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report.” The complete DPO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 March 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no 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 notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 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 showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the rating period in question, 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 issues 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04756 in Executive Session on 8 September 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04756: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPO, dated 7 Jan 11, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 11. Panel Chair