RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00911
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Jun  99
through 29 Dec 99 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report reflected neither his performance,  conduct,  nor
his potential in his duty position during the period  of  the  report.
Instead,  the  report  minimized,   ridiculed,   and   falsified   his
performance.  Based on his first-hand knowledge of  the  circumstances
surrounding this period, as well as that of other individuals, it  was
readily apparent that the rater knew his statements on  the  OPR  were
false when he wrote them.  The additional rater, who concurred on  the
report, has never even met him, never spoken to him,  never  made  any
effort to discuss his performance  or  the  circumstances  surrounding
this  period  with  him,  and  had  no  first-hand  knowledge  of  his
performance.  Likewise, the additional rater’s predecessor, who served
as the additional rater during the actual period of the  report,  only
met him briefly twice before the period of the OPR, never saw  him  or
spoke to him during the period of report, never  made  any  effort  to
discuss his performance or the circumstances surrounding  this  period
with him, and had no first-hand knowledge of  his  performance  during
the period of the report or any other.  Ultimately, the  OPR  and  the
rater’s intent seemed to say more about the  character  of  the  rater
than his performance.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, a copy of the contested report, documentation pertaining to
an  Inspector  General  (IG)  investigation,   and   other   documents
associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Mar  99.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 1 Jun 77.

Applicant's OPR profile since 1990 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       4 May 90              Meets Standards
       1 May 91              Meets Standards
       2 Jan 92              Meets Standards
      31 Aug 92              Meets Standards
      16 Jul 93              Meets Standards
      16 Jul 94              Meets Standards
      14 Jun 95              Training Report
      14 Jun 96              Meets Standards
      14 Jun 97              Meets Standards
       5 Jun 98              Meets Standards
       1 Jun 99              Meets Standards
*     29 Dec 99          Does Not Meet Standards
  #   29 Dec 00              Meets Standards
 ##   29 Dec 01              Meets Standards
###   29 Dec 02              Meets Standards

* Contested report.

  # Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of brigadier  general  by  the  CY01  Brigadier
General Board.

 ## Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of brigadier  general  by  the  CY02  Brigadier
General Board.

### Top Report at the time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of brigadier  general  by  the  CY03  Brigadier
General Board.

A Report of Investigation (ROI), dated 20 Apr 01,  indicated  that  an
investigation was conducted into an allegation made by  the  applicant
that the Commander, --- Air Control Wing (-- ACW/CC)  did  not  follow
the Commander, Air Combat  Command  (COMACC)  reconstitution  guidance
following  Operation  Allied  Force.   The  ROI  concluded  that   the
allegation was not substantiated.

A complete copy of the ROI is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE  recommended  denial.   AFPC/DPPPE  noted  the  applicant’s
contention that the rater had a history  of  self-serving,  unethical,
abusive, and dishonest behavior as  evidenced  by  a  previous  SAF/IG
investigation.   However,  this  office  procured   the   summary   of
investigation of the referenced IG investigation.  The majority of the
complaints were unsubstantiated; however, the  lack  of  feedback  and
unauthorized organizational changes were substantiated.   Further,  as
stated in AFI 36-2402, paragraph 2.6., the ratee  is  responsible  for
notifying the rater and, if  necessary,  the  additional  rater  if  a
required feedback session did  not  take  place,  and  requesting  the
feedback.

AFPC/DPPPE noted the applicant’s contention that the additional  rater
had no first-hand knowledge of his performance during this  period  or
any other.  Likewise, the additional rater’s predecessor,  who  served
as the additional rater during the actual period of the report,  never
saw or spoke to the applicant during the period of this  OPR  or  made
any effort to discuss his performance or the circumstances surrounding
the  period.   However,  AFPC/DPPPE  indicated  that   the   governing
instruction does not require additional raters or even raters to  have
direct contact with the  ratee.   Many  individuals  have  to  perform
duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision.  Additionally,
if an evaluator other than the rater changes  after  a  report  closes
out, but before  it  is  ready  for  endorsement,  the  new  evaluator
endorses the report.

AFPC/DPPPE  stated  that  in  worker-supervisor  relationships,   some
disagreements are likely to occur since  a  worker  must  abide  by  a
supervisor’s policies and decisions.  Personnel who do not perform  at
expected standards or require close supervision may  believe  that  an
evaluator is personally biased.  However, the  conflict  generated  by
this personal attention is usually professional rather than  personal.
Investigations  into  the  situation  have  revealed  the  applicant’s
allegations were unsubstantiated.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Aug
02 for review and response (Exhibit E).  On 23 Sep 02,  the  applicant
requested that his appeal be temporarily withdrawn (Exhibit F).

Applicant provided  a  response  indicating  that  the  advisory  from
AFPC/DPPPE completely failed  to  address  the  specific  concerns  he
documented with respect  to  his  OPR.   The  rater's  negative  false
impressions and statements in the contested OPR have cost him numerous
opportunities, including fair consideration for wing  command  despite
the strong recommendations in the three OPRs he has received since the
OPR in question, as well as fair consideration for  promotion.   While
he continues to serve the mission and people of the United States  Air
Force, he should not have to do  so  with  the  anchor  of  the  false
statements of the rater continuing to pull his record and career down.
 When he ultimately retires, he should be entitled to  do  so  with  a
record that accurately reflects his years of  service,  not  one  that
minimizes, ridicules, and falsifies the work he has done.  He strongly
requests that the Board void the extremely false and  destructive  OPR
and remove it from his record.

Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________


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  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence
presented, we have some doubt whether  the  contested  report  was  an
accurate depiction of the applicant's duty performance.  Among various
concerns raised about the accuracy of the  OPR  in  question,  we  are
particularly of the opinion that the comments in the OPR (at  lines  6
and 7 of Block VI),  alluding  to  the  applicant  having  approved  a
squadron drinking fest within the wing, were  seriously  erroneous  if
not an outright falsification.  In view of the foregoing,  we  believe
any doubt concerning the fairness and accuracy of the contested report
should be  resolved  in  favor  of  the  applicant.   Accordingly,  we
recommend that the applicant's OPR closing 29 Dec 99 be declared  void
and  removed  from  his  records,  and  that  he   be   provided   SSB
consideration with his corrected record.

_________________________________________________________________

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  (OPR),  AF Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 2 Jun 99 through 29 Dec 99 be declared void  and  removed  from
his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of brigadier general  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar Year 2001 Central Brigadier General Selection Board  and  for
any subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 29 Dec 99 was a matter
of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-00911 in Executive Session on 26 Aug 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Report of Investigation, dated 20 Apr 01
                 (withdrawn).
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 24 Jul 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Aug 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 23 Sep 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Sep 02.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jun 03, w/atch.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair









AFBCMR BC-2002-00911




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 (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the
period 2 Jun 99 through 29 Dec 99 be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of brigadier general by a Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Year 2001 Brigadier General Selection Board and for any
subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 29 Dec 99 was a matter of
record.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency