RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-00246
                  INDEX CODE 111.01  111.03  111.05  131.01
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 17 Mar 00  through
16 Mar 01 be declared void from his records and he be afforded Special
Selection Board (SSB) consideration for all promotion boards for which
the report was a matter of record, beginning with  the  Calendar  Year
2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a squadron commander, he received an OPR that was inconsistent with
prior evaluation due to a personality conflict with the wing commander
and lack of feedback from the logistics group commander. As  a  result
of bias due to false accusations and counseling  on  matters  such  as
officer’s club membership and participation in  the  Combined  Federal
Campaign (CFC), he was given an OPR that lacked a statement for larger
command or Senior Service School (SSS). He was awarded the  Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM) at the end  of  his  tour  while  his  peers
received Meritorious Service Medals (MSMs).  The  Evaluations  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB)  denied  his  request  and  referred  him  to  the
Inspector General (IG), who would not investigate his case.

He provides supporting statements from several individuals,  including
the raters for the 16 Mar 00 and 16 Mar 02 OPRs.

The applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  14  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major (date of rank: 1 Nov 97). During the period in question
he was the commander of the XXth Logistics Support  Squadron  at  XXXX
AFB, NM. The rater of the contested  report  was  the  XXth  Logistics
Group commander, and the additional rater
was the XXth Special Operations Wing commander. The  additional  rater
of the contested report was also the additional rater for the previous
OPR closing 16 Mar 00.

The applicant’s recent performance reports reflect the following:

      PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

        30 Jun 98                       Meets Standards
        16 Mar 99                       Meets Standards
        16 Mar 00                       Meets Standards
      * 16 Mar 01                       Meets Standards
        16 Mar 02                       Meets Standards
      **28 Jun 02                       Training Report

* Contested & top report reviewed by CY01B Board
**Top report reviewed by CY02B Board

The applicant was considered, but  not  selected,  by  the  CY01B  LTC
board, which convened on 5 Nov 01. The Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF) had  an  overall  recommendation  of  “Promote.”  The  applicant
provided a letter to the CY01B selection board regarding the contested
OPR, explaining the report was a result of a personality conflict with
the wing commander based on false information that  was  neither  duty
related nor of a  UCMJ  nature.  He  also  indicated  he  received  no
performance feedback. The contested OPR  indicates  he  last  received
feedback on 31 Jan 01.

On 22 Oct 02, the ERAB denied the applicant’s request to void  the  16
Mar 01 OPR. He was advised to contact the IG if he believed this to be
a case of reprisal or retribution.

The applicant was also considered, but  not  selected,  by  the  CY02B
board,  which  convened  on  12  Nov  02.  His  PRF  had  an   overall
recommendation of “Promote.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPE  notes  the  applicant  did  not   provide   supporting
statements from the rating chain. Further, the same  additional  rater
included  professional  military  education   (PME)   and   assignment
recommendations in the  previous  year’s  evaluation.  Clearly  rating
chain opinions changed in the contested reporting period.  Individuals
who do not perform at expected standards or require close  supervision
may believe an evaluator is personally biased. There are no derogatory
comments on the contested OPR. A rater’s failure to conduct a required
or requested feedback session or document the  session  will  not,  of
itself, invalidate any  subsequent  performance  report.  Through  the
applicant’s own admission, he was only going to appeal the OPR  if  it
kept him from  being  promoted.   His  contentions  have  been  poorly
supported and they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing to add to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory.  SSB  is
not warranted and denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant is concerned regarding a conflict of  interest  and  the
impartiality of HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s evaluation given that the  author  was
part of the ERAB process and wrote the cover  letter  for  the  ERAB’s
denial. AFI 36-2401 states  ratings  and  comments  inconsistent  with
prior evaluations are reasons to appeal an OPR. Additionally, the fact
that the additional rater did not change is especially relevant. While
true that the additional rater remained the same,  if  the  additional
rater changed his assessment in  such  a  dramatic  fashion,  feedback
should have been provided to note such a major change in opinion.  The
applicant refers to the supporting  statements  he  provided,  one  of
which was from the previous logistics group commander. It is extremely
illogical to expect comments from the  chain  of  command  during  the
disputed period as the lack of comments is one of the grounds for this
case. He has no knowledge of the evidence that the  chain  of  command
used to determine their dissatisfaction with him as they provided  him
with no comments or  specific  reasons  to  support  the  ratings  and
comments in the OPR. Further, to suggest he needed closer  supervision
misses the  point  of  the  case.  Closer  supervision  would  require
feedback, identifying the problem, recommending a solution and  period
assessment of progress, which did not occur. Due  to  the  personality
conflict, the  additional  rater  would  not  discuss  the  matter  to
resolution, or tell him or his rater what he  was  accused  of  or  by
whom. The lack of feedback is not the sole  reason  for  removing  the
OPR; i.e., the report is inconsistent with  prior  evaluations,  there
was a personality conflict, and there was undue emphasis on  isolated,
unsubstantiated incidents. An individual cannot remedy a problem if he
is unaware of the problem. To suggest that the feedback system is  not
a key factor in the betterment of  duty  performance  is  inconsistent
with USAF policy, which has made it mandatory.

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  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 to warrant voiding  the  contested
OPR and granting the  applicant  SSB  consideration.  After  carefully
reviewing the applicant’s submission and  the  available  evidence,  a
majority of the Board concedes the 16 Mar 01 report could possibly  be
tainted. In this regard, the Board majority was  impressed  by  active
duty officers willing to attest to the strained  relationship  between
the additional rater and the applicant, which apparently was driven by
the additional rater’s unsubstantiated charges of disloyalty and  poor
leadership against the applicant. Most convincing to the  majority  of
the Board was the supporting statement from the captain who served  as
the area defense counsel (ADC) at Kirtland AFB during  the  period  in
question. The ADC asserted the applicant’s claims were neither that of
a disgruntled subordinate nor an isolated point of view,  and  that  a
quality officer’s career should not be damaged  by  the  inappropriate
actions of what appeared to be a command clique.  The  Board  majority
notes the additional rater accused  the  applicant  of  “bad-mouthing”
him, yet he provided no specifics  regarding  the  alleged  derogatory
remarks or who made them.  Since  he  refused  to  discuss  or  reveal
specifics to the applicant, the Board majority finds it plausible that
the applicant received no feedback  as  he  contends.  The  additional
rater also believed the applicant did  not  support  the  CFC  program
despite the applicant’s explanation of why he had not  contributed  to
it. In the Board majority’s opinion, the  additional  rater  seems  to
have felt somewhat at odds with the Logistics personnel’s support, and
may have allowed this to prejudice his assessment  of  the  applicant.
The lackluster OPR appears to be in sharp contrast to the  applicant’s
otherwise glowing performance history and, in view of the  above,  the
majority of the Board believes any benefit  of  the  doubt  should  be
resolved in the applicant’s favor by voiding  the  contested  OPR  and
affording the applicant SSB consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  for  the  period
17 March 2000 through 16 March 2001 be declared void and removed  from
his records.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for  any  and
all selection boards for  which  the  OPR  was  a  matter  of  record,
beginning with the Calendar  Year  2001B  (CY01B)  Central  Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 June 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

A majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as  recommended.
Mr. Roj voted to deny the  appeal  but  does  not  wish  to  submit  a
Minority Report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  relating  to
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00246 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Mar 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Mar 03, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair




AFBCMR BC-2003-00246




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, for the period
17 March 2000 through 16 March 2001 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 lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for any
and all selection boards for which the OPR was a matter of record,
beginning with the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board.





         JOE G. LINEBERGER

         Director

         Air Force Review Boards Agency