DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-0 1 16 1 

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: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating to- 
e corrected to show that the NGB Form 26, Department of the Army 
rd Bureau, ANG Active Duty Performance Rating, rendered for the 
period  1 March  1995 to 28 February 1996 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her 
records. 

fiv 

Director 

Air Force Review goards Agency 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT : 
The  Air  National  Guard  (ANG) Active  Duty  Performance  Rating, 
National  Guard  Bureau  (NGB) Form  26,  rendered  for  the  period 
1 March 1995 to 28 February 1996 be removed from her records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT : 
She worked  in the Maintenance  Function of  the  167 Airlift  Wing 
for five  years  when  she  was  selected  for the  Operations  Group 
Admin position  in Che Operations Function in May  1995.  She had 
her  7 level in' her  current Air  Force Specialty Code  (AFSC) and 
had no trouble adjusting to the new position.  During this period 
her  supervisor never  had  reason to  counsel her.  When  it  came 
time for her appraisal in February 1996, her supervisor gave her 
an  overall  rating of  satisfactory.  Before  that  time, she  had 
only received excellent ratings.  She asked  him  if  there was  a 
problem or reason that her appraisal fell to a satisfactory.  He 
told her the Air Operations Officer (his direct supervisor) had a 
policy  and  simply  would  not  back  down. 
The  Air  Operations 
Officer  felt  that  individuals  relatively  new  to  the  squadron 
should  be  given  something  "to  strive  for." 
She  asked  for 
clarification by asking "so you're  telling me  there was no way I 
could have had a better appraisal regardless of  my performance?" 
His answer was that he was sorry but  that was correct.  She has 
been  told  that  there  were  several others over  the  past  years 
affected by this "policy" of the Air Operations Officer. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the 
rater stating he discussed applicant's work performance with the 
Air Operations Officer.  The Air Operations Officer stated it was 
his policy not to give a rating higher than a "Satisfactory" for 
first  year  performance  ratings. 
He  concurred  with  the  Air 
Operations Officer and rated the applicant as "Satisfactory." 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

97-01161 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The  applicant  is currently  serving  in  the  ANG  in  the  grade  of 
technical sergeant. 

ANG Active Duty Performance Rating profile since 1994 reflects 
the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 
28 Feb 94 
28 Feb 9 5  
*  28 Feb 96 

*  Contested report. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

Exce 1 lent 
Excel lent 
Satisfactory 

The Chief, Utilization, ANG/MPPUR, reviewed this application and 
states the applicant has failed to provide additional information 
of  substantial performance  that  would  indicate  a  higher  rating 
than satisfactory.  The narrative on the NGB  Form  26, Item  8a, 
provides  justification to  support  a  satisfactory  rating.  They 
also noted  that  the  applicant  failed to  appeal  the  performance 
report within the required 30 days after the ratee review.  The 
burden  of  proof  in  this  case  must  rest  with  the  applicant  to 
prove  an  error  or  injustice  has  occurred. 
Therefore,  they 
recommend denial. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states the bottom 
line is that to most  people none of this will matter and she can 
understand that.  But because she knows that  the Air Operations 
Officer’s  decision  to  create  his  own  evaluation  policy  could 
cause  someone  to  be  at  the  top  of  a  reduction-in-force  (RIF) 
list, is unjust and unfair.  She is not sure it is understood how 
very  important,  and  what  could  amount  to  career  ending, 
performance ratings can be under these conditions.  At  the very 
least, they  should  be  done  solely  on  performance,  never  on  a 
“defamatory” policy. 

97-01161 

In further support of  her appeal, applicant submits a statement 
from the current Air Operations Officer stating he  concurs with 
the application to correct the applicant's performance appraisal. 
Applicant's complete response, with  attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3. 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  Based 
on the evidence of record, we believe the contested report should 
be removed from the applicant's record.  The statement submitted 
from the rater indicates the Air Operations Officer had a policy 
not  to give a rating higher  than a Satisfactory for first year 
performance  ratings. 
In  addition,  we  note  the  statement 
submitted by  the  current Air  Operations  Officer  indicating  her 
performance has been consistently excellent and above.  In view 
of the foregoing, and in an effort to offset any possibility of 
an  injustice, we  believe  the  contested  should be  declared  void 
and removed from her records. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the NGB Form 26, 
Department of the Army and Air Force, National Guard Bureau, ANG 
Active Duty Performance Rating, rendered for the period  1 March 
1995 to 28 February 1996 be  declared void  and removed from her 
records. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 15 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair 
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner  (without vote) 

97-01161 

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

The 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 

DD Form 149, dated 9 April 1997, w/atchs. 
Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, ANG/MPPUR, dated 23 December 1997. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 February 1998. 
Applicantis Response, dated 18 February 1998, 
with attachments. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chair 

4 

DEPART~ENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

AIR NATIONAL GUARD READINESS CENTER 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  ANG/MPPUR 

3500 Fetchet Avenue 
Andrews AFB, MD  20762-5157 

SUBJ 

on of Military Records 

The attached application for Correction of Military Records submitted by the 
Air National Guard, is forwarded for your 

applicant, a member of th 
review and action. 

The applicant requested the National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 26, 1 Mar 
The applicant submitted a DD Form  149, dated 

95 - 28 Feb 96 report be removed. 
9 Apr 97, requesting correction to military records. 

This Headquarters recommends denial.  We have contacted the Headquarters 
A u  National Guard Office and we concur with their  31 J u l 9 7  letter. 

The applicant has failed to provide additional information of substantial 
performance that would indicate a higher rating than satisfactory.  The narrative 
on the NGB Form 26, Item 8a, provides justification to support a satisfactory 
rating.  We also noted that the applicant failed to appeal of the performance report 
within the required 30 days after  the ratee review.  The burden of proof in this case 
must rest with the applicant to prove an error or injustice has occurred, therefore 
we must recommend denial. 

Questions should be directed to MSgt Gowdy at DSN 278-7500, Email : 

gowdyt@ang.af.mil. 

FOR THE COMMANDER 

rn 

NILDA E. URRUTIA, Lt Col, USAF 
Chief, Utilization 

* _   .  & 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
HEADQUARTERS 167th AIRLIlT WING(AMC) 
MARTINSBURG WEST VIRGINIA 25401-7704 

222 SABRE JET BLVD RM 107 

3 Jul97 

- /-  /A+ 

4 7 

MEMORANDUMFOR 167AWKC & 

TAG WVESSO 
INTURN 

FROM: 167 AWKV 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Record 

1: 

I n c u r  with the application to C O K ~ C ~  

the subject performance appraisal c 

P 

2.  Since my selection as Air Operations Officer in December 1996, her performance has been 
consistently excellent and above.  She  accomplished assigned  tasks promptly and accurately. Her 
job knowledge, reliability, and initiative have always met high standards.  I have nothing to indicate 
that her performance was less  than excellent during the subject appraisal period. 

JESSE A. THOMAS, LTC, WVANG 
Air Operations officer 

I 

1 

. 

.

I

 

a 

I

'

 

1st lnd to ANGN 
Military Records 

TAG, WV 

ication for Correction of 

18 June 1997 

MEMORANDUM FOR 167 AWICC 

For your comments and recommendation and return to this office. 

% k k W A N G  
Executive Support Staff Officer