RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04984 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 29 April 2011 through 17 August 2011 be voided from his permanent records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He was removed from command on 9 Aug 11 and was ordered to report to AFSOC A5/8/9, for duty, on 10 Aug 11. He reported as ordered and as of 10 Aug 11 his supervision under his former supervisor was relinquished. His new supervisor signed a memo stating that he started supervision on 10 Aug 11 and approved his leave request for the period of 12 - 15 Aug 11. This leave request and approval is evidence that he was assigned to work at AFSOC and that he had a new supervisor. After his removal from command, he had no interaction with his former supervisor. 2. On 10 August 11, during his initial in-brief, the AFSOC Director of Plans and Programs stated that since he was removed from command without cause, leadership's plan was to continue to provide him an opportunity to make Colonel. He further stated that he (the applicant) was “still on the train.” On 19 Aug 11, he received the referral OPR. He addressed his concerns to the AFSOC Director of Plans and Programs who stated that he misspoke on 10 Aug 11, and that wing leadership's plan was to present him with a referral OPR. He informed the AFSOC Director of Plans and Programs that he had concerns about the days of supervision. He was told not to worry about the days of supervision because he and his former supervisor would make it work. Shortly thereafter, he was reassigned back to the wing after his former supervisor realized that he did not have enough days of supervision for a report. The subsequent reassignment back to the wing was for the sole purpose of issuing a referral report. This is a clear integrity violation. Supervision under the former supervisor did not occur after 9 Aug 11. He has a previous OPR that closed out in Mar 2004, which has identical circumstances as far as rating and supervision. In this previous assignment from March 2003 thru March 2004, he was assigned to the wing, but his supervisor was at AFSOC. 3. According to AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, a commander must have 60 days of supervision to generate this type of report. His former supervisor assumed command of the Operations Group on 17 Jun 2011. His supervision started on 17 Jun 2011, and he was relieved of command on 9 Aug 11, and reassigned to AFSOC with a new supervisor on 10 Aug 11, therefore there were 53 days of supervision. AFPC initially informed the MPF that his former supervisor lacked sufficient days of supervision based on the initial referral OPR. In an attempt to rate him, his former supervisor changed his duty title on the subsequent referral OPR. This change to the document occurred after his initial rebuttal. However, he did not change the duty description. The duty description is identical to the initial referral OPR. The duty description is for his previous assignment but the duty title is for his AFSOC assignment. Furthermore, the OPR does not reflect any of his accomplishments in his new job. The remarks pertain to his previous assignment as squadron commander. This is inconsistent, incorrect, and unjust. 4. During his initial feedback session with his former supervisor, on 18 Jul 11, he was told that he was meeting all expectations; however, he was under a microscope. When he asked why, his former supervisor just stated “you are.” His feedback form also stated that he needed to return the squadron to a standard of excellence and that doing so would take time. His former supervisor failed to list which standards the squadron was failing to meet. After the feedback, he was left to wonder what exactly were his leadership’s concerns regarding his squadron and him personally. There were 22 days between the time he received feedback on 18 Jul 11 and his removal from command on 9 Aug 11. He was not given an adequate amount of time to make corrections. His former supervisor never once indicated that his performance or handlings of matters were inconsistent with Air Force values. On discipline matters, he supported all of his decisions. 5. The AFSOC/CC commented on the referral OPR stating that he is not culpable, but accountable. Although he agrees with the comment that a commander is accountable for the actions of his/her command, being accountable simply means having ones actions objectively reviewed for conformity with the standards expected of a commander. In this case, he consistently demonstrated conformity with the high standards expected of one in command. The OPR fails to link or highlight one thing that he did or did not do to contribute to the accusations. The comments are vague and not specific. Additionally, the OPR fails to account for all the good decisions he made as a commander. Here, the standard of not culpable, but accountable has been terribly misapplied. If the standard of performance for commanders is perfection, then every commander should be fired for the missteps of subordinates. The standard of not culpable, but accountable is a hollow logic without a true end or outcome. Moreover, no specific incidents were ever cited for the basis of this referral OPR and he was never counseled, admonished, or reprimanded orally or in writing for any misconduct or shortcomings. He was only told that he was being held “accountable although he was not culpable.” 6. As a former commander, he accepts full responsibility and accountability for any shortcomings of the squadron during his tenure. But, none of those shortcomings merit a referral OPR. He has served in the Air Force for over 18 years and has never been accused or charged with any misconduct. The allegations in question are vague and his former supervisor offers no substantial or explicit examples of how he failed in his responsibilities as a commander. By any objective standard, he should not have been removed from command or issued a referral report. Flying squadron commanders are normally judged by combat performance, flying safety record, performance on inspections, and personal conduct. The squadron excelled at all performance criteria and he was never accused of any officer misconduct. His removal from command is an affront to the core value of integrity. Not only does this referral OPR cause him great pain, it reflects poorly upon a period of great satisfaction in his life. He treasures his experiences and the hard work of everyone in his former squadron. He has not done anything to warrant a referral OPR. In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal statement, copies of support documents, 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 a Regular Air Force commissioned officer in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5). The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, to request the OPR be voided from his records. The ERAB considered the request, however, they were not convinced the report was unjust or wrong, and denied the requested relief. The following is a resume of his last five OPR ratings commencing with the most recent report closing on 30 June 2012. PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 30 Jun 2012 Meets Standards (MS) * 17 Aug 2011 Does Not Meet Standards 28 Apr 2011 MS 28 Apr 2010 MS 28 May 2009 MS * - Contested Report ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states, the applicant contends that his OPR with an inclusive period of 29 Apr 11 through 17 Aug 11 was unjustly rendered due to various violations, by his rating chain, of the referral process in accordance with (lAW) AFI 36-2406 guidance. Based on lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant, they recommend that the contested evaluation not be voided from his permanent record. 2. The applicant contends that he was inappropriately held accountable for events that occurred during his tenure. A review of the contested OPR clearly shows that the rater did in fact clearly detail the behavior that caused the report to be referred. The specific referral comment “Removed from command as I lost confidence in his ability to effectively command his squadron” must be taken at face value in this case. The applicant was in fact in this same unit during his prior reporting period and in a position of authority on both evaluations. Additionally, the applicant has in no way proven in his appeal that his rater improperly held him accountable for events that occurred during his tenure. In the absence of any statements from the rating chain to either confirm or deny these accusations, and to shed light on their view of these allegations, it is not possible to successfully make these assumptions. Based on the fact that these allegations have not been confirmed by any independent investigative body, such as the Inspector General (IG) or other appropriate investigative body, they find these allegations made by the applicant to be baseless and without any merit. 3. Regarding the applicant’s allegation that his rater failed to accrue the minimum number of days (60) to render the referral OPR, they have reviewed the OPR in question and have noted that the rater recorded 62 days of supervision on the OPR. The test here is for the applicant to prove that this number of days is false. The applicant states that the rater did not assume group command until 17 Jun 11. Nevertheless, the close-out date being 17 Aug 11 would still equate to 62 days of total supervision. The applicant fails to understand that when he was “removed from command,” he was still assigned as a member of his former squadron with duties at AFSOC. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.2.5.4, “commanders may deviate from the normal (supervisory) rating chain when necessary to meet grade requirements or to accommodate unique organizational structures and situations where personnel are temporarily loaned or matrixed to other activities outside the ratee’s assigned PAS.” In this case, it appears that this is exactly what transpired in that the applicant was temporarily loaned to AFSOC on 10 Aug 11. This is also corroborated by the letter dated 31 Oct 11, signed by the AFSOC/CC that the permanent change of assignment (PCA) action from the squadron to AFSOC was approved effective 17 Aug 11. This confirmed that the 62 days of accrued supervision obtained by the rater is correct. 4. The applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence to prove any of his assertions that the report was rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely provided his view of events as he believes them to be true. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent 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. It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air Force regulations. They contend that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested OPR was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant states that he disagrees with AFPC/DPSID's assessment and evaluation. His case is about integrity and injustice. The evaluation fails to address either. His removal from command and the issuance of a referral OPR violates the Air Force core value of integrity. The fact remains that the WG/CC and OG/CC manipulated the assignment management system to issue the referral. The mere fact that the WG/CC signed a letter on 31 Oct 2011, a full 85 days after his removal from command illustrates a commitment to manipulate the system. His actions beg the question, why the letter was issued 85 days after the fact. The evaluation also fails to point out the most important fact of the memorandum signed by his current supervisor who stated that supervision began on 10 Aug 11. This fact coupled with his in-processing and all the associated documents provided to, but ignored by, the evaluator shows that he neither had any duties at the squadron, nor interaction with anyone in his prior chain of command. Again, this is about integrity and injustice. The applicant reiterates his contentions that during his tenure the squadron excelled at all performance criteria, he took disciplinary action when necessary and he held everyone accountable. 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the contested OPR is inaccurate or that its contents violate governing directives. We have noted the applicant’s contentions concerning the contested report and his allegations that the OPR violates the Air Force core value of integrity. However, while the applicant may believe this is the case, there is nothing in the evidence provided which would lead us to believe that the OPR in question was prepared with any motivation on the part of the evaluators other than to report their assessment of the applicant’s performance. Other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that the evaluators abused their discretionary authority, that the report is technically flawed, or that the evaluators comments are based on inappropriate considerations. Therefore, 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 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 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 22 August 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04984: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Nov 2012, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 2013. Chair