AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-0  9 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

1 2  1998 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

..p 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs) closing 29 February 1992 and 
28 February 1993 be removed from his records. 
He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of major. 

He be reinstated in the Air National Guard. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

A  substantial  personality  conflict  existed  between  him  and  the 
rater.  The rater's  influence over the additional rater precluded 
the additional rater from preparing fair and impartial evaluations. 
The  rater and  additional rater placed  undue  emphasis on  isolated 
incidents  (conduct) . 
Both  OPRs  were  inconsistent  with  prior 
evaluations.  During the entire time that the rater and additional 
rater  were  his  supervisors,  there  was  a  substantial  lack  of 
counseling  on  alleged  deficiencies. 
Finally,  there  was  a 
substantial lack of observation/supervision on which to base either 
OPR. 

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of a draft OPR 
for the period  1 March  1991  thru  28  October  1991;  a copy of  the 
contested  OPR  covering  the  period  1 March  1991  thru  29  February 
1992, with applicant's  rebuttal comments; a copy of  his letter to 
the President of the FY94 Reserve of the Air Force Major Selection 
Board;  supporting  statements  from  his  immediate  supervisor 
beginning  in August  1992,  and  former evaluators; and  a  statement 
from the state National Guard Inspector General.  (Exhibit A) 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On  5  June  1980,  applicant  was  appointed  as  second  lieutenant, 
Reserve of  the Air Force.  He was ordered to extended active duty 
on 27 October  1980.  He  served on continuous active duty and was 
subsequently  promoted  to  the  grade  of  first  lieutenant. 
On 
31 March  1984,  he  was  honorably  released  from  active  duty  and 
transferred  to  the  Reserve  Forces  (Air National  Guard).  He  was 

credited  with  3  years,  5  months  and  5  days  of  active  Federal 
service. 
On 2 April  1984, applicant was extended Federal recognition in the 
Air  National  Guard  in  the  grade  of  first  lieutenant.  He  was 
promoted to the grade of captain effective 5 June 1987. 
A  resume  of  applicant's  non-EAD  OERS/OPRS  subsequent  to  his 
promotion to captain, as reflected in his officer selection record, 
follows: 

- 

. 

PERIOD OF REPORT 
1 Nov 86 -  30 Sep 87 
1 Oct 87 -  29 Feb 88 
1 Mar 88 -  28 Feb 89 
1 Mar 89 -  28 Feb 90 
1 Mar 90 -  28 Feb 91 
*  1 Mar 91 -  29 Feb 92 
*  1 Mar 92 -  28 Feb 93 
1 Mar 93 -  7 Dec 93 

OVERALL EVALUATION 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Does Not Meet Standards (Referral) 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

*  Contested reports. 
Applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion by the FY94 
and FY95  Reserve of the Air Force Line and Health Major Selection 
Boards,  which  convened  on  1  March  1993  and  7  March  1994, 
respectively. 
On 1 February 1994, applicant was honorably discharged from the Air 
National  Guard  and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force  Reserve.  As  a 
result of his second nonselection for promotion, the applicant was 
reassigned to  the Nonaffiliated  Reserve  Section  (NARS), effective 
19 June 1994.  Effective 2 September 1995, he was relieved from his 
assignment with  HQ ARPC  (NARS) and  honorably  discharged  from  all 
appointments  in  the  USAF.  The  ANG/USAFR  Point  Credit  Summary, 
prepared  6  August  1994,  reflects  that  applicant  had  12  years  of 
satisfactory Federal service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Master  Records  Management  Division, ARPC/DSMO, reviewed  this 
application  and  recommended  denial,  stating  that,  although  the 
applicant  has  provided  favorable  communications  from  individuals 
not  in  his  rating  chain  for  the  OPRs  in  question,  they  are  not 
convinced  by  the  evidence  provided,  that  these  reports  do  not 
accurately  portray  applicant's  duty  performance  and  should  be 
removed from his record. 

If the Board disagrees, they recommended removal of  the  contested 
reports from the applicant's record, that his records be considered 
for promotion by  a Special Review Board  (SRB) in lieu of  the  FY94 

2 

AFBCMR 95-02759 

and 
are 
for 

FY95 Reserve of  the Air  Force Major Boards; and, if  the OPRs 
removed and the applicant is promoted via SRB, he be considered 
reinstatement in the Air National Guard by contacting HQ ANGRC. 

The 

complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  stated  that  the  29  February  1992  OPR  was  written  by 
individuals who were  not  in h i s   unit  or  in his  rating  chain for 
nearly all of the reporting period.  In addition, the OPR  closing 
28 October 1991 covers the same period of.time. 
The  OPR  closing  28  February  1993  was  also  written  by  the  wrong 
For  nearly  all  of  the  rating  period,  he  was 
individuals. 
assigned/attached to another unit  on the other side of  the state. 
This  report  also  contains  numerous  factual  inaccuracies,  as 
evidenced by  the  letter  drafted  by  his  supervisor  (Lt Col  H---) 
during this reporting.period (letter appended at Exhibit A). 

Applicant's  complete response is at Exhibit E. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

After a review of the applicant's  rebuttal to the original advisory 
opinion, ARPC/DSMO recommended approval of the applicant's  request. 
DSMO  stated  that  although  the  applicant  did  not  supply documents 
from  individuals  in  the  rating  chain,  he  did  include  numerous 
letters  from  members  whom  he  worked  with  and  knew  of  the 
personality  conflict  between  the  applicant., the  rater  and  the 
additional rater.  They believe the applicant  has provided enough 
documentation  to  cause  serious  doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  the 
reports.  (Exhibit F) 

APPLICANT'S  RESPONSE TO THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was provided to the 
applicant on 16 December 1996 for review and comment.  As  of  this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. 
law 

The applicant has  exhausted all  remedies provided  by  existing 
or regulations. 

2 .  

The application was timely filed. 

3 

AFBCMR  9 5 - 0 2 7 5 9  

3 .   Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting corrective 
action with  respect  to  the  contested OPRs.  In this  regard, the 
contents of  the  statements provided  by  the  immediate  supervisors 
during the contested rating periods, and the two evaluators who had 
prepared  a  report  covering  the  first  contested period, which was 
not  accepted  for  file,  causes  us  to  question  the  acFuracy  and 
fairness  of  the  contested  reports. 
These  individuals  have 
indicated that the performance  reflected  in the contested reports 
is  inconsistent  with  their  observance  of  the  applicant's  duty 
performance.  In addition, the  Inspector General  (IG) found  that 
the report closing 29 February 1992 was not prepared by the proper 
officials.  He further found that during the rating period ending 
28 February 1993, the applicant worked under the supervision of an 
officer not in his normal chain of command.  However, his chain of 
command was unwilling  to relinquish rating responsibilities or to 
accept  input  from  the  day-to-day  supervisor. 
Based  on  the 
foregoing,  we  believe  that  any  doubt  as  to  the  accuracy  and 
fairness of the contested reports should be resolved in applicant's 
favor and recommend that the contested reports be removed from his 
records. 
We  further  recommend  that  he  be  reconsidered  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  all  boards  for  which  the 
contested reports were a matter of record. 

4.  Applicant's  request  for  reinstatement  in  the  Oregon  Air 
National Guard is noted.  However, in view of  the Board's  limited 
authority  with  respect  to  reinstating  an  individual  in  the  Air 
National Guard, we  are deferring a final decision on this portion 
of  his application pending  the results of  the  recommended Special 
Review Boards. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent  military records of  the Department of  the Air  Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a.  The  Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, 
rendered for the period  1 March  1991 through 29 February 1992, be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

b.  The Company Grade 
rendered for the period  1 
declared void and removed 

Officer Performance 
March  1992 through 
from his records. 

Report, AF Form 707B, 
28 February 1993, be 

It  is  further recommended that  he  be  considered  for promotion  to 
the  grade  of  m a j o r   by  Special Review  Boards; that  his  record  be 
evaluated  in comparison with the records of  officers who were  and 
were  not  selected by  the  FY94  and  FY95  Reserve  of  the  A i r   Force 
Line  and  Health Major  Selection Boards  that  convened  on  1 March 
1993 and 7 March 1994, respectively; and that the recommendation of 
the Special Review Boards be  forwarded to  the Air  Force Board  for 

4 

AFBCMR 95-02759 

Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so 
that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed. 

The following members of  the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  24  April  1997,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records, as  recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 95, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DSMO, dated 2 May 96. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 May 96. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jun 96. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, ARPC/DSMO, dated 22 Nov 96, w/atch. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Dec 96. 

L .Qu 

\* 

'  Panel Chair 
'JOHN L. ROBUCK 

5 

AFBCMR  9 5 - 0 2 7 5 9  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON DC 

JUN  1 2  1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 95-02759 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

ords of the Department of the Air Force relating to- 
corrected to show that: 

a.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for 

the period 1 March 1991 through 29 February 1992, be, and hereby is, declared void and 
removed from his records. 

b.  The Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for 

the period 1 March 1992 through 28 February 1993, be, and hereby is, declared void and 
removed from his records. 

It is W h e r  directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special 
Review Boards; that his record be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were 
and were not selected by the FY94 and FY95 Reserve of the Air Force Line and Health Major 
Selection Boards that convened on 1 March 1993 and 7 March 1994, respectively; and that the 
recommendation of the Special Review Boards be forwarded to the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and 
appropriate actions may be completed. 

4 4  

. 
Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency 

U 
EBER  R