RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC 2002-02352
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  Gary R. Myers

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period  3
Sep 99 through 2 Sep 00 be removed from his records.

Should he  be  considered  for  promotion  to  major  with  the  above
contested report as part of his record and  is  not  selected,  he  be
considered for promotion to major by special selection board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In an eight-page brief submitted by counsel, applicant indicates  that
an isolated incident of nominal  gravity  allowed  an  already  biased
commander to abuse her position of authority by issuing  an  OPR  that
reflected that bias.  Counsel does not dispute that the incident  took
place and provides a summary  of  what  took  place.   In  support  of
applicant’s appeal, counsel provides a copy of the applicant’s  appeal
to the Evaluation Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB),  which  was  denied,
statements  of  support,  and  the   applicant’s   prior   record   of
performance.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 4
Jun 96.  A review of the applicant’s OPRs indicates overall ratings of
“meets standards” with the exception of the referral report  contested
above.  The applicant filed an appeal with  the  ERAB  on  10  Apr  01
seeking to have the referral report rendered on him for the  period  3
Sep 99 through 2 Sep 00 removed from his records.  The ERAB denied his
request.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained
in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force
found at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  void  his
OPR closing out 2 Sep 00.

The applicant’s 2 Sep 00 OPR was referred to him because of  a  rating
of “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section V (2), Leadership Skills.  The
applicant concedes that this was a result of an incident  involving  a
staff sergeant, but believes the incident was a  misunderstanding  and
overstressed by his rater.  Additional comments made by the  rater  in
Section VI suggest that there were other  factors  involved  that  the
rater considered before rendering her assessment.

AFPC/DPPPE notes several  discrepancies  in  the  applicant’s  appeal.
They also note that the supporting letters provided by  the  applicant
do not specifically provide firsthand evidence of an injustice on  the
contested report.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the  evaluation  prepared  by  AFPC/DPPPE  and
recommends  denial  of   the   applicant’s   request   for   promotion
consideration by  SSB.   The  applicant,  if  eligible,  will  not  be
considered for a major’s central selection board until  calendar  year
2004.  AFI 36-2501,  Officer  Promotions  and  Selective  Continuation
states that SSBs are conducted to consider officers when they did  not
meet a board or were improperly considered  by  one  or  more  central
selection   boards.    The   applicant   is,   therefore,   requesting
consideration for a board he has not yet met.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel responded to the evaluations  by  indicating  that
they have demonstrated in their  basic  filing  that  the  applicant’s
rater was biased against him.  Counsel  opines  that  the  information
provided in the supporting statements confirm this.   Counsel  asserts
that the Air Force’s efforts to identify errors in the application  is
a complete red herring having no relevency to the  treatment  received
by the applicant from his rater.  Counsel specifically addresses  each
discrepancy pointed out by the Air Force:

          a.  Counsel states that there were  others  in  the  kitchen
when the incident took place, but there was no one close to the  staff
sergeant involved in the incident and no one else heard  the  comments
made.

          b.  Regarding the applicant’s training plan, counsel asserts
that the applicant was  deliberately  kept  from  managerial  training
although he often requested it.  The  applicant  never  really  had  a
training plan, but rather a challenge to test his  humiliation  limits
in hopes of discouraging the applicant to  the  point  that  he  would
voluntarily separate from the Air Force.  When this did not work,  the
rater focused on the only option she had  left,  the  single  isolated
misunderstanding.

          c.  Finally in response to the  question  about  the  menial
tasks that the applicant performed versus projects he led  during  his
tenure at the wing,  counsel  states  that  there  is  no  doubt  that
applicant’s jobs were menial in nature (and did not correspond to  his
rank), but the applicant continued to maintain a positive attitude  at
all  times.   To  show  his   willingness   to   excel   under   added
responsibility,  applicant  volunteered  for   numerous   wing   level
projects, many of which the applicant led as primary point of contact.

The Air Force evaluation suggests that “other factors” were insinuated
by the  rater  for  the  applicant’s  referral  OPR.   The  rater  was
obligated to state with sufficient specificity so that  the  applicant
could respond to the areas that were unsatisfactory.   The  Air  Force
evaluation supports the notion that raters have the right to engage in
vague, unsupported character assassination.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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  complete
evidence of record, the Board believes that the OPR  rendered  on  the
applicant for the period 3 Sep 99 through 2 Sep 00  was  unduly  harsh
given the single incident it appears to be based  on.   We  note  that
AFPC/DPPPE opines, “Only the evaluators know  how  much  the  incident
influenced the report.”  Further, they state that additional  comments
made by the rater in Section VI  of  the  contested  report  “strongly
suggest” there were other factors considered by the rater besides  the
referenced incident.  While these observations  may  have  merit,  the
Board believes that the serious and far-reaching impact of this OPR on
the applicant’s Air Force  career  require  that  the  record  contain
sufficient evidence to support the rater’s actions.  We find  this  to
be particularly necessary in this case, since  none  of  the  previous
OPRs rendered on the applicant make reference to his unsuitability  to
serve as an Air Force officer.  In fact, according to the  performance
feedback given  to  the  applicant  only  four  months  prior  to  the
contested report, he needed little or no improvement  in  any  of  the
performance factors listed, including leadership.  The  only  negative
information documented in the applicant’s record  after  the  feedback
session is the incident referenced in the contested  OPR.   The  Board
believes that the applicant made a serious mistake, but notes that  he
took immediate action to apologize, in writing, to the injured  party.
While some corrective action may have been warranted, the OPR  is  not
the proper instrument.  Therefore,  in  the  interest  of  equity  and
justice, we recommend that the  applicant’s  record  be  corrected  as
indicated below.

4.  Since the first promotion board that will consider  the  applicant
for promotion to major will not convene until calendar year  2004,  we
find no  basis  to  consider  the  part  of  the  applicant’s  request
regarding promotion consideration by SSB.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  Company  Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for  the  period  3
September 1999 through 2 September 2000, be declared void and  removed
from his records.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2002-
02352 in Executive Session on 1 April 2003, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Nov 02.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Nov 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Counsel, dated 7 Feb 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair


AFBCMR BC-2002-02352


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 XXXXXXXXX,  XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B,
rendered for the period 3 September 1999 through 2 September 2000,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency