RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

          AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS




 IN THE MATTER OF:     DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01688
           INDEX CODE:  111.01


           COUNSEL:  NONE


           HEARING DESIRED:  NO




 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:


 The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 7 May
 95 through 6 May 96 be declared void and removed from his records.


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:


 The report  contains  numerous  errors  and  inconsistencies  that
 invalidate the report and warrant its removal.  After he  reviewed
 the   report,   he   immediately   identified   three    duplicate
 accomplishments  from  the  report  ending  6 May  95.    In   all
 instances,   the   6 May   95    report    correctly    identified
 accomplishments   for   that   rating    period.     These    same
 accomplishments were repeated in  the  report  closing  6 May  96;
 however, no such events occurred during  the  rating  period.   He
 believes  this  was  an  error  reflecting   negatively   on   his
 performance record.  During performance feedback in  May  01,  his
 commander reviewed his record, pointing out the inconsistencies in
 the report in question.  The commander discussed corrective action
 and suggested he (applicant) submit the 6 May 96 report to the Air
 Force Board for Correction of Military  Records  (AFBCMR).   Until
 this time, he believed this course of action was not possible  due
 to his previous appeal to  the  ERAB.   The  commander  identified
 additional issues not considered during his initial appeal:


           1.    A Change  of  Reporting  Official  (CRO)  was  not
 accomplished when he was reassigned to the  56th  FW  in  Dec  95,
 which would have generated a performance report.  An annual report
 was accomplished in May 96 (five months after  his  reassignment).
 This is inconsistent with performance reporting policies.


           2.    The additional rater makes a negative comment, yet
 “concurs” with the positive assessment  of  the  rater.   This  is
 inconsistent with performance reporting policies.


           3.    Reassignment to the 56th OSS did not  occur  until
 Dec 95 yet the rater indicates feedback was not accomplished  “due
 to reassignment.”  Feedback could, and should, have been completed
 well  before  Dec  95.   This  is  inconsistent  with  performance
 reporting policies.


 The applicant states that singularly,  no  item  identified  above
 justifies removal of the 6 May 96 report.  However, when viewed as
 a whole, the seven separate instances (three duplicate events,  no
 CRO, additional rater concurrence, lack of feedback,  and  failure
 to allow him to respond to the  negative  comments  prior  to  the
 final report  being  placed  in  his  record)  are  sufficient  to
 invalidate the report in question and warrant removal.


 Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


 _________________________________________________________________


 STATEMENT OF FACTS:


 The  applicant’s  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service   Date
 (TAFMSD) is 8 Jul 81.  He is currently serving on extended  active
 duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel,  effective,  and  with  a
 date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 98.


 Applicant’s OPR profile since 1989 reflects the following:


             PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION


               1 Jun 90             Meets Standards (MS)
               1 Jun 91                     MS
              13 Feb 92                     MS
              18 Sep 92                     MS
               6 May 93                     MS
               6 May 94                     MS
               6 May 95                     MS
            *  6 May 96                     MS (Referral Rpt)
               6 May 97                     MS
               6 May 98                     MS
               6 May 99                     MS
               6 May 00                     MS


      * Contested report.


 The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions  of  AFI
 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.   The
 Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request to  void
 the report and instead directed the report be referred because  it
 contained referral statements in  Section  VII  (Additional  Rater
 Overall Assessment), Lines 2 - 4.  The ERAB finalized the referral
 OPR on 29 May 97.


 _________________________________________________________________


 AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and  Recognition   Division,
 AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and indicated that  it  would
 not be appropriate to void the OPR in its entirety since it can be
 corrected administratively by removing the  repeated  information.
 Therefore, DPPP suggests the Board direct the repeated comments in
 Section IV (Impact on Mission Accomplishment), Lines 2, 8,  and  9
 and Section VI (Rater Overall Assessment),  Line  2,  be  deleted.
 Although  the  applicant  believes  a   CRO   should   have   been
 accomplished when he was reassigned to the 56th  FW,  he  did  not
 provide evidence from his commander  validating  that  his  losing
 rater had supervised him for 120 days, the minimum number of  days
 of supervision required to necessitate an OPR.


 The applicant contends the additional  rater  concurred  with  his
 rater’s assessment yet made a negative comment in Section  VI  and
 this is inconsistent with performance  reporting  policies.   DPPP
 determined that the  additional  rater  marked  the  wrong  block.
 Therefore, the “X” should be moved from the “concur block” to  the
 “nonconcur block.”


 DPPP further states that while current Air Force  policy  requires
 performance feedback for personnel, a direct  correlation  between
 information provided during feedback sessions and the  assessments
 on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.   There  may  be
 occasions when  feedback  was  not  provided  during  a  reporting
 period, and in those cases, the rater is  required  to  include  a
 reason for lack  of  feedback.   The  applicant  did  not  provide
 anything from his rater proving the reason for lack of feedback is
 inaccurate.  Lack of counseling or feedback,  by  itself,  is  not
 sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.


 DPPP concludes that the OPR  can  be  corrected  administratively.
 The remainder of the report should be maintained  as  a  permanent
 part of the applicant’s record since he did not provide conclusive
 evidence from his evaluators indicating  any  other  comments  are
 erroneous.  Therefore, DPPP recommends denial of  the  applicant’s
 request to void the  6 May  96  OPR  and  recommends  approval  of
 corrections outlined in their summary.


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


 _________________________________________________________________


 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:


 Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and  provided  a  two-
 page letter responding to the advisory opinion  and  stating  that
 the best course of action remains invalidation and elimination  of
 the May 96 OPR from his records.


 Applicant’s complete response, with  attachment,  is  attached  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 probable error or  injustice.   After
 reviewing the evidence  of  record,  we  are  persuaded  that  the
 contested report is an inaccurate assessment  of  the  applicant’s
 performance during the contested period.  While he did not provide
 conclusive evidence from his  evaluators  indicating  any  of  the
 comments on the report are erroneous, we note the  inconsistencies
 on the report in question, i.e.,  duplicate  accomplishments  from
 the report closing 6 May 95; the  negative  comment  made  by  the
 additional rater in Section VI yet he concurred with  the  rater’s
 assessment, etc.  Therefore, in order to resolve  any  doubt  with
 respect to the propriety of the OPR in question, and in an  effort
 to preclude any possibility of an injustice, we  recommend  it  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
 OPR, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 7 May 95 through  6 May
 96, be declared void and removed from his records.


 _________________________________________________________________


 The following members of the Board considered this application  in
 Executive Session on 23 August 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI
 36-2603:


                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
                 Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member




















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


      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jun 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jul 01.
      Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 2 Aug 01, w/atch.








                                    JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                    Panel Chair


 AFBCMR 01-01688








 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:


      The pertinent military records of the Department of  the  Air
 Force relating to , be corrected to  show  that  the  Field  Grade
 Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the  period
 7 May 1995 through 6 May 1996, be, and hereby  is,  declared  void
 and removed from his records.














                                                          JOE    G.
 LINEBERGER
                                                        Director
                                                         Air  Force
 Review Boards Agency