. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03606 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

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: 

.t 

hereby is, declared void and removed from his records. 

records of the Department of the Air Force relatiig 
orrected to show that the Field Grade Officer Perfo 
r the period  19 March 1996 through 6 September 1996, be, and 

- 

I 

Air Force Review Boards Agency  . 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 7 - 0 3 6 0 6  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

AUO  2 7  2998 

APPLICANT REOUES TS THAT: 

The  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR) rendered  for  the  period 
1 9   March  1 9 9 6   through  6  September  1996, be  declared  void  and 
removed from his record. 

'I 

AP PL I CANT CONTENDS 'THAT : 
He has earned  superior performance ratings and endorsements his 
entire  career.  Following  the  conclusion of  a  Social  Actions 
investigation,  of  which  he  was  cleared  of  any  violation,  the 
additional  rater  summarily  ended  his  career  and  promotion 
potential  with  a  totally  unproven, unfounded  personal  opinion 
statement  on  the  contested  report.  He  has  been  approved  for 
retirement effective 1 April  1 9 9 8 ,   and has nothing to gain from 
this  request  except  to  clear  his  record  of  totally  inaccurate 
facts, and regain confidence in a system that has seemingly lost 
all concept of common sense. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the 
rater on the contested report  indicating that  shortly after the 
contested  report went  forward, the  additional  rater  called  him 
into his office to discuss his endorsement.  The additional rater 
asked  him  for details  regarding a  Social Actions  investigation 
which involved the applicant.  He  informed the additional rater 
that  a  chief  master  sergeant  had  forwarded an offensive e-mail 
joke  to  several  acquaintances  including  the  applicant. 
Even 
though the Social Action's Officer had inappropriately determined 
applicant's guilt before the investigation, an exhaustive search 
of  all  the  electronic  records  and  interviews  with  numerous 
squadron  members  failed  to  produce  a  shred  of  evidence  that 
applicant  had  even  read  the  e-mail,  much  less  that  he  had 
supported or fostered it.  Having direct knowledge of applicant's 
professionalism and integrity, he accepted applicant's  word that 
he did not  recall reading the message and, therefore, must  have 
deleted  it  along  with  other  junk  mail. 
After  taking 
administrative action against the sender, he considered the case 
closed.  After  recounting  the  particulars  with  the  additional 
rater, he  (rater) stated  that  being  an  intended  recipient  of 
someone  else's  gross  error  in  judgment  does  not  disqualify  an 

97-03606 

of  icer from commancl.  The additional rater agreed in princ,ple, 
but  stated that the applicant  "had to have  read it"  despite the 
lack  of  any  supporting  evidence  and  contrary  to  applicant's 
direct statement to him.  The additional rater then changed the 
recommendation  for  command  bullet  to  "Squadron  command  not 
recommended at this .  .  . ' I  
The  rater  also  states  that  the  contested  report  reflects  two 
fundamental wrongs.  First, the additional rater's  comments are 
based on reasoning which is contrary to fairness and justice.  In  , 
effect, he  took  9  closed  investigation, reopened it, tried  it, 
and  concluded  with  a  finding of  "guilty"  even  though he  never 
allowed  the  accused  to  present  a  defense. 
Second,  such  a 
statement on a field grade officer's OPR carries such a negative 
weight  it  effectively not  only cuts off  any chance  f o r   command 
but  also  eliminates  the  officer  from  any  possibility  for 
promotion.  Such a statement must  be  refesred to the ratee, and 
this one was not.  Whether one agrees with the additional rater's 
verdict  or not,  the  facts remain that  the  applicant  was  never 
afforded the opportunity to offer a rebuttal for consideration by 
his senior rater. 

stating 

Applicant  also submits a statement from 
that  as mere  office  humor, he  forwarded-numerous 
personnel.  Taken out  of  context, someone was  offended by  the 
content of the document and a Social Action investigation began. 
At  completion of  the  investigation he  was  reprimanded  for his 
conduct  and  failure  to  follow good  judgment  in  forwarding the 
e-mail.  He honestly wishes that he  could say his reprimand was 
the end of the story, but it is not.  Based on the receipt of an 
e-mail that was never asked  for, applicant has had  to bear the 
burden  of  a  reduced  endorsement  that  is  based  solely  on  his 
actions and the opinion of senior leaders.  The 
( 
that  his  personal  actions  have  had  a  negative 
h 
efiect  on  applicant's  career. 
With  the  Logistics  Group 
Commander's  underscored  endorsement  based  on  appearance  and 
perception  rather  than  fact,  he  urgently  requests  that  the 
contested OPR be removed from applicant's record. 

In  further support  of his  appeal, applicant  submits copies  of 
OPRs,  copy  of  retirement  orders,  and  redacted  Social  Actions 
Report. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant retired from extended active duty in the grade of major 
effective 1 April 1998. 

Applicant was considered and nonselected by the CY97C Lieutenant 
Colonel Selection Board, as a below-the-zone candidate. 

9 7 - 0 3 6 0 6  

*  Evaluation  Reports. 

Applicant did not submit an appeal of the contested OPR under the 
provisions  of  AFI  3 6 - 2 4 0 1 ,   Correcting  Officer  and  Enlisted 
Since  the  applicant  failed  to  provide 
support from all of  the evaluators of the contested report, this 
application was not returned. 

His OPRs rendered since 1 9 9 3   reflect the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

1 8   Mar 93 
1 8  Mar 94 
1 8   Mar 9 5  
1 8   Mar 9 6  
0 6   Sep 9 6  
0 1  Jun 97 

* 

*  Contested report 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

'I 

The  Chief,  Appeals* and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed  this 
application and states that the rater states the additional rater 
had  never  met  the  applicant  and,  therefore,  did  not  directly 
observe  applicant's  performance.  The  rater  alleges  the  final 
statement  in  Section  VI1  of  the  report  was  changed  by  the 
additional  rater  after  a  discussion  concerning  the  social 
action's  investigation,  making  the  report  a  referral. 
They 
disagree.  An  OPR  is  not  referred  unless  any  comment  in  the 
report  refers  to  behavior  incompatible  with  standards  of 
professional conduct, character, or  integrity.  The  additional 
rater's comments did not make the report a referral.  Nor was he 
obligated, under these circumstances, to obtain a statement from 
the applicant.  However, there is one anomaly in the additional 
rater's section which is that the "concur" block was marked even 
though he specifically nonconcurs with the rater's recommendation 
for a squadron commander position. 

AFPC/DPPP further states that the applicant and his rater contend 
the additional rater changed the final statement in Section VI1 
as a result of the social action's investigation.  They consider 
this to be  speculation on the part of both the applicant and his 
rater.  They  note,  the  additional  rater  did  not  specifically 
mention  the  reason  he  did  not  recommend  the  applicant  for 
squadron command.  Although the applicant and rater seem to think 
the  statement was  a direct  result of  the e-mail incident, they 
have  no  evidence  this  single  event  was  the  sole  reason  the 
additional  rater  nonrecommended  the  applicant  for  a  squadron 
commander's  job. Since the applicant  failed to provide anything 
from the additional rater, they must  assume he nonconcurred with 
removal of the OPR. 

97-03606 

They note that the applicant provides a copy of a memorandum from 
social actions, but  it does not  state the findings of  the case, 
nor does it  specifically address the contested OPR.  Therefore, 
they conclude it is irrelevant to this issue.  The applicant has 
failed  to  prove  error  or-  injustice  in  regard  to  the  contested 
report and recommend denial of the application. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

On  27  January  1998,  a  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was 
forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  response  within  30 
days.  As  of  this date, no  response has been  received by  this 
off ice. 

'I 

THE BOARD CONC LUDES 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 probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  are  persuaded  that  the 
contested report is not an accurate assessment of the applicant's 
performance during the period  in question.  In this respect, we 
note the statement submitted from the rater who indicates that he 
discussed the e-mail incident with the additional rater; that he 
told  the additional rater that  no evidence  could be  found that 
the  applicant  had  read  the  e-mail;  that  the  additional  rater, 
despite the  lack of  evidence, stated that the applicant  "had to 
have  read  it"; and, that  the  additional rater then changed  the 
recommendation  for  command  bullet  to  "Squadron  command  not 
recommended  at  this  time. 
Based  on  this  statement  and  in 
recognition of  the applicant's  prior and  subsequent outstanding 
performance, we  believe the contested report should be  declared 
void and removed from his 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 Field Grade 
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 
19  March  1996  through  6  September  1996, be  declared  void  and 
removed from his records. 

97-03606 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 28 July  1998, under  the provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote) 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26  Nov 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 7 Jan 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 Jan 98. 

'I 

Panel Chair 

5 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  F O R C E  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   AIR  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUMFOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPP 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

SUBJECT: 

- I  

- -  

&quested Action.  Applicant requests voidance fiom his official records of the officer 

performance report (OPR) that closed out 6 Sep 96. 

I 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends his group commander (additional rater) 

downgraded his indorsement on the OPR as the result of a social actions investigation for which 
he was cleared.  The applicant applied for voluntary retirement effective 1 Mar 98, which was 
approved. 

a 

Recommendation, Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  Application is timely.  Applicant did not submit an appeal of the contested 
OPR under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 3 Jun 94.  We 
did not return the application because the applicant failed to provide support from all of the 
evaluators of the contested report. 

b. The governing directive is AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System,  1 Jul 
96.  The applicant has not yet been considered in-the-promotion zone for promotion to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel by the central major promotion board. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal brief, copies ofhis 

OPRs, copy of a statement of suspect/witness/complainant fiom social actions, and 
memorandums from social actions, the Area Defense Counsel (ADC), the rater of the 
contested report and someone outside the rating chain.  The evidence submitted by the 
applicant was torn and in poor condition when received in this office. 

d.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as Mitten when it 

becomes a matter of record.  It takes substantial evidence to the contrary to have a report 
changed or voided.  To effectively challenge an OPR, it is important to hear fiom all the 
evaluators on the contested report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. 

. .. 

e.  The applicant provided a letter from the rater from the contested report who 

recommended voidance of the contested report, since a single statement could not be 
removed.  We disagree.  The applicant could have requested the statement be removed from 
the report, but would require additional rater’s support.  The applicant’s rater further states the 
additional rater had never met the applicant, and therefore, did not directly observe his duty 
performance.  He alleges the final statement in Section VII of the report was changed by the 
additional rater after a discussion concerning the social actions investigation, making the 
report a referral.  Again, we do not agree.  An OPR is not referred unless any comment in the 
OPR, or the attachments, refer to behavior incompatible with standards of personal or 
professional conduct, character, or integrity, such as omissions or misrepresentation of facts 
in official statements or documents, financial irresponsibility, mismanagement of personal or 
government affairs, unsatisfactory progress in the Weight Management Program or Fitness 
Improvement Training Program, confirmed incidents of discrimination or mistreatment, 
illegal use or possession of drugs, Absent Without Leave (AWOP), and conviction by court 
martial.  We, therefore, determine the additional rater was not obligated to refer the report 
since his statement did not refer to behavior incompatible with standards of professional 
conduct, character, or integrity. Nor was he obligated, under these circumstances, to obtain a 
statement fiom the applicant.  However, there is one anomaly in the additional rater’s section 
which is that the “concur” block was marked even though he specifically nonconcurs with the 
rater’s recommendation for a squadron commander position. 

f The applicant and his rater contend the additional rater changed the frnal 
statement in Section VI1 as a result of the social actions investigation.  We consider this to be 
speculation on the part of both the applicant and his rater.  We note, the additional rater did 
not specifically mention the reason he did not recommend the applicant for squadron 
command in the contested OPR.  Although the applicant and his rater seem to think the 
statement on the OPR was a direct result of the e-mail incident which spurred the social 
actions investigation, we have no evidence this single event was the sole reason he 
nonrecommended the applicant for a squadron commander’s job.  Since the applicant failed to 
provide anything fiom the additional rater, we must assume he nonconcurred with removal of 
the OPR. 

g.  The statement from outside the rating chain is not germane to this case. 

While the individual is entitled to his opinion of the applicant, we are provided no reason to . 
believe he was in a better position to assess the applicant’s duty performance during the 
contested rating period than those specifically charged with his evaluation.  Especially since 
he, a chief master sergeant in the United States Air Force, by his own admission, exhibited 
extremely poor judgment when he forwarded distasteful e-mail in the first place.  In the 
absence of information from the evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice fiom 
the Inspector General (IG) or Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case.  We 
note the applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from social actions, but it does not state 
the fmdings of the case, nor does it specifically address the contested OPR.  We, therefore, 
conclude it is irrelevant to this issue.  The applicant has failed to prove error or injustice in 
regard to the contested report.  We find the OPR to be accurate as written and do not support 
the applicant’s  request to remove it from his official records. 

Summaw.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

'I