RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03489 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The AF IMT 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt Thru Col), rendered for the period 7 Dec 2009 through 5 Apr 2010, be declared void and removed from his records. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His referral OPR is an inaccurate reflection of his duty performance, hastily drafted to improperly demonstrate documented accountability for a nuclear inspection failure. His strong duty performance is proven in the OPR previous to the contested referral OPR despite taking command of a neglected unit with a known record of inspection failures and unfilled positions. His rater's rater failed the same inspection twice previously, with no known accountability. The commander he replaced was a temporary replacement for another fired commander, strongly indicating a history of lack of support. All of the Group's worst disciplinary cases were transferred to his unit during a period of required increased manpower, poisoning the unit with continuing disciplinary issues and requiring increased levels of non-judicial punishment and counseling. This had clear mission impact that was beyond the unit’s control. His requests for replacement personnel were continually denied, and his requests for additional training were denied by the commander. These are direct contributors to failures in performance. In short, he could not fix the unit on his own, and received extremely poor support from his senior officers. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Army Commendation Medal citation, some of his OPRs, and a Letter of Evaluation. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ ? STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in the grade of major. He did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance profile: Period Ending Performance Factor 5 Apr 2012 Meets Standards 5 Apr 2011 Meets Standards * 5 Apr 2010 Does Not Meet Standards 6 Dec 2009 Meets Standards 6 Dec 2008 Meets Standards *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant has not provided any significant evidence to prove his assertions that the contested OPR was rendered unfairly or unjustly. The report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. Air Force policy states that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it represents the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. 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 any information/support from any rating official on the contested evaluation. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The reason he did not file an appeal through the ERAB is because it would require the documented reversal or amendment of the rater evaluation or written evidence to that fact, and he disagrees with his removal from command and contests the subsequent performance report. It would be unprofessional to question a superior officer's judgment and then ask him to document his mistake for the record. Moreover, he agrees with the OPR’s assessment that he did not adequately document his own accountability within the text of his rebuttal to the contested performance report. Although he continues to disagree with the decisions of his rater and rater's rater, he does not have further evidence to present in support of his original request. His 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 careful notice of the applicant's complete submission, to include his response to the advisory opinion 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We are not persuaded by the evidence provided in support of his appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, 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(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 5 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2012-03489: Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 26 Jul 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Oct 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, undated. Panel Chair