RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00787 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 11 Oct 12, be declared void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested OPR should be removed because it violates AFI 36- 2406, Officer and Enlisted Performance Evaluation Systems: 1.1 (Purpose) to provide meaningful feedback to individuals on what is expected of them, advice on how well they are meeting those expectations, and advice on how to better meet those expectations. 1.12.6. (Performance Outside the Reporting) period); 1.12.7.4.2 (Disciplinary Actions) (Derogatory Information and Disciplinary Actions) must be reasonably specific, clearly outlining the event and/or behavior. Comments such as “conduct unbecoming” or “an error in judgment led to an off-duty incident” are too vague and open the door for appeals. 1.12.7.4.3. The ratee must be advised specifically why he or she is considered substandard in order to respond appropriately. 1.12.7.4.4. An evaluation should not simply contain the comment “…MSgt S. received an Article 15 during this period.” Instead, the underlying conduct should be specifically cited with the resulting action included, such as: “During this reporting period, Lt J. sexually harassed a female subordinate for which he received an Article 15,” or MSgt S. drove while under the influence, for which he received an Article 15.” 2.11.4 (End-of-Reporting Period Feedback) Raters should review the evaluation content with the ratee and discuss why the ratings were given, and what can be done to improve performance during the upcoming evaluation period. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her Performance Feedback Worksheets, Memorandum for Record, Referral OPR, response to the referral OPR, and the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) response to the referral OPR. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Florida Air National Guard (MD ANG) in the grade of major. The applicant’s OPR closing 1 Oct 12 includes comments that make it a referral report. In Section IV, Rater Overall Assessment, it states “Maj P. was relieved from supervisor responsibility for failing to foster team work and maintain composure,” and in Section V, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, it states “Maj P. was removed as OIC of the Weather Supt team for exhibiting poor leadership and judgment skills.” The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance profile: Period Ending Performance Factor * 1 Oct 12 Does Not Meet Standards 1 Oct 11 Meets Standards 1 Oct 10 Meets Standards 1 Oct 09 Meets Standards 1 Oct 07 Meets Standards 1 Oct 06 Meets Standards 1 Oct 05 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: ANG/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states that initially, the lack of detail in the statements noted on the applicant’s OPR substantiated her claim that the OPR does not comply with AFI 36-2406. However, after contacting the applicant’s unit, there is extensive documentation that specifically identifies a continued behavior deficiency and several attempts to correct her behavior from her leadership including her immediate supervisor. On 13 Dec 11, the applicant received her initial Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) from her supervisor. The feedback noted areas of needed improvement in sections 2 and 5. According to this feedback, the applicant needed to improve on fostering teamwork amongst her team. Section 5 of the same worksheet indicated that she needed to maintain composure under stressful situations. On 15 Mar 12, the applicant was suspended from her supervisory duties as the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the Weather Specialty Team (WST) via a Memorandum for Record (MFR). The applicant’s supervisor provided another PFW indicating that she was not meeting his expectations identified in section 2, noting her deficiencies leading her subordinates and working well with others. Additionally, section 5, emphasized that she exercised poor judgment which led to her removal as a supervisor. NGB/A1 contacted the applicant’s unit and discovered substantial information documenting her leadership and supervisory challenges, which began years before the referral OPR was processed. Numerous MFRs were received from personnel who either worked for the applicant or witnessed her interactions with her subordinates. The applicant was provided formal feedbacks dating back to 2010 addressing the need to correct her leadership and supervisory techniques. Despite several attempts to rectify the issue, she was given another formal feedback on 8 May 12 and noted she had not improved in her leadership and judgment, and was no longer meeting her supervisor’s standards. Prior to this feedback, her leadership attempted numerous times to correct her behavior, but decided to pursue a referral OPR as her conduct was unbecoming of a field grade officer. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the evaluation, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant has an outstanding record in the ANG as evidenced by her OPRs from Oct 06 through Oct 11. The OPR closing 2 Oct 11, showed stellar performance with a closing comment that she should be challenged in new leadership roles. In Dec 11, shortly after this report, she had a feedback session, clearly stating that she knows her job extremely well, however, also stating she needed to foster teamwork. Improvement was noted but it was stated that work was needed to maintain composure under stressful situations. The next action was a MFR, dated 15 Mar 12, which removed her from her supervisory role, as the OIC, Weather Support Team (WST). There were no verbal counselings, performance feedback sessions, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or Article 15 actions, Letters of Reprimand, Admonishments or counselings of any kind. The following feedback session on May 12, reiterated the same statements of poor judgment and decisions, with no improvement and again this document did not state specifics or details concerning these allegations, nor did it give her any feedback as to how she could improve. Further, she had been removed as a supervisor so it was not possible to make improvements as a supervisor. The actions against the applicant are troubling because of the lack of examples, details and specifics of problems with teamwork, composure, leadership and judgment. The JAG representing her in response to the referral OPR stated that the purpose of the Officer Evaluation system is to provide meaningful feedback to individuals on what is expected of them, advice on how well they are meeting those expectations and advice on how to better meet those expectations. Performance feedback is designed to provide a realistic assessment of performance, career standing, future potential and actions required to assist the ratee in reaching the next level of professional development. This was not accomplished and the applicant was summarily dismissed without mentoring or relevant feedback. The NGB/AIPP memorandum states that there was substantial information which began years before the referral OPR. However, none of this documentation was ever presented to the applicant. No examples were ever presented to her for improvement, and no documentation was presented for her to review and rebut. This “documentation” presumably was obtained from selected individuals who did not like her. The applicant’s counsel provides letters from individuals that worked with the applicant that reflect an officer and supervisor that was fair and impartial, one who assured the workload was shared equally. There is an appearance of sexual bias against the applicant as a supervisor and favoritism of her subordinates by her commander. This is the crux of the situation where it appears young troops were permitted to go outside the chain of command and complain of treatment when they did not like a decision. When the applicant was removed as a supervisor, Capt H. became her supervisor. Capt H. had a relationship with an enlisted member, and this relationship was reported to the applicant, who took the information to her superiors. At which point, she was told she had made a huge mistake by up-channeling this affair, and things went downhill after this incident. Senior management created a hostile work environment when they labeled the issues in the WST as “women’s issues.” In Mar 12, senior management appointed a female lieutenant colonel to handle personnel issues, before the applicant was relived of her duties. It appears an atmosphere prevailed for the female subordinate officers and Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) to complain outside their chain, whenever the applicant would attempt discipline, counseling, work scheduling, etc. This may or may not be a sexual bias case, but it is an example of poor leadership by the applicant’s supervisors in not backing up her decisions because they either did not like her or did not like her by-the-book style. In summary, the applicant was removed from the WST for a referral OPR. However, this referral OPR is unjustified and unsupportable. It should also be noted that the concurrence to the NGB/A1PS advisory is signed by the same individual who threatened the applicant when she reported the fraternization by a subordinate. This is certainly a conflict. The counsel’s complete response, with attachments, 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action. The applicant requests that her OPR closing 1 Oct 12 be declared void and removed from her records. She contends that her OPR was not prepared in accordance with AFI 36-2406. We note that initially, NGB/A1PP believed that the lack of details in the statements noted on the applicant’s OPR substantiated her claim that the OPR did not comply with AFI 36- 2406. However, after the applicant’s unit advised A1PP that documentation existed on her behavior deficiency and the attempts to correct her behavior, A1PP reversed its opinion. In our review of the applicant’s records we did not find any evidence of the documentation. Moreover, AFI 36-2406 clearly states comments on referral reports must be reasonably specific, clearly outlining the event and/or behavior. Therefore, it is our opinion the contested OPR lacks specificity and is not in compliance with the AFI. In order to preclude any possibility of an injustice, her records should be corrected as indicated below. 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 RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col) rendered for the period 2 Oct 11 through 1 Oct 12, be declared void and removed from her records. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00787 in Executive Session on 21 Jan 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Aug 13, w/atchs. Panel Chair