RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01968
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  14 June
2000 through 31 January 2001 be declared void  and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  contested  OPR  was  unjust  due  to  unclear   and   conflicting
policy/guidance regarding LASIK eye surgery  eligibility  requirements
for members in  his  career  field.   He  believes  that  this  entire
situation was riddled with misunderstandings and unclear policy.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of AF  Form  948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports,  a  copy  of
the contested OPR, a copy  of  the  USAF  aviation  and  Special  Duty
Photorefractive Keratectomy  (PRK)  Waiver  and  Surveillance  Program
Policy Letter, a copy of his annual physical examination, a copy of HQ
AFSCP/SG Corneal Refractive Surgery Policy, a  copy  of  Exception  to
Policy letter, a copy of Surgeon General’s Policy  Regarding  Aviation
and Special Duty Photorefractive Keratectomy Waiver  and  Surveillance
Program, a copy of his LASIK Post-Operative Examination and copies  of
two preceding and two following OPR’s.

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
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 28 May 2001.  His total
active federal military service date (TAFMSD) is 26 May 1997.

On 3 November 2000, the  applicant  underwent  LASIK  surgery.   As  a
result  of  the  surgery,  the  Personnel  Reliability  Program  (PRP)
certifying official permanently decertified  the  applicant  from  PRP
duties.  He received a referral officer  performance  report  for  the
period 14 June 2000 trough 31 January 2001.

The applicant filed an appeal under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,  1 December  1997,
requesting the contested report  be  voided.   The  Evaluation  Report
Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the request based  on  the  fact  that  the
statements in the OPR were factual and no evidence was provided by the
member to prove otherwise.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFM recommended  denial.  The  applicant  underwent  LASIK  eye
surgery on 3 November 2000 at the advice of  F.E.  Warren  optometrist
and flight surgeon.  There was no definitive policy guidance in place,
at that time, concerning LASIK surgery for Space Missiles Operators.

As a result of the surgery, the PRP  certifying  official  permanently
decertified him from PRP duties IAW AFI 36-2104, Personnel Reliability
Program,  para  A3.3,  which  states,  “Permanent  decertification  or
disqualification indicates the individual has questionable reliability
or  long-term  impaired  capability   (longer   than   the   temporary
timeframe).”  The decertification was based on the long-term  impaired
capability.

The commander  followed  the  appropriate  procedures  to  permanently
decertify the applicant.  The permanent decertification is valid.   He
can apply for a waiver to the permanent decertification now  that  the
LASIK surgery  policy  and  the  AF  Space  Command  policy  has  been
modified.

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

AFPC/DPPPE strongly recommends denial.  AFI 36-2104,  Nuclear  Weapons
Personnel Reliability Program, paragraph 1.13., specifically states it
is the member’s responsibility to inform their commanding officer, “of
all health  care  received  (medical,  dental,  counseling,  etc.)  to
include TDY  treatment”  and  “if  a  PRP  certified  person  requires
treatment from a civilian physician …”  Attachment four further  lists
minimum items that individuals obtaining PRF certification are briefed
on.  Paragraph A4.1.4.,  states  individuals  have  an  obligation  to
report to their commanding officer any factors or conditions  (on  and
off duty) that could impair their performance…”  The applicant has not
provided any documentation to indicate he notified anyone in his chain
of command of the  surgery,  as  was  his  responsibility  to  do  so.
Therefore, the report is an accurate assessment by the rating chain.

The applicant did not provide any evidence that  proves  he  took  the
responsible steps necessary to  research  whether  or  not  LASIK  eye
surgery was allowed for his career field.  “The OPR states a fact that
he  was  disqualified  from  PRP  duties   and   this   affected   the
mission.”(sic)  It is a moot point that now his career field can  have
the surgery done since his  failure  to  research  and  abide  by  the
regulations prohibited him from performing his duties.   Further,  AFI
36-2104 specifically indicates it was the  applicant’s  responsibility
to notify his commanding officer of the surgery, which  he  failed  to
do.

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

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial based on the evidence provided,  and  the
recommendation in the DPPPE advisory.

A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the DPSFM advisory confirms that  there  was  no
definitive policy or guidance concerning LASIK surgery for  Space  and
Missile Operators.  This statement furthers his  contention  that  Air
Force policy and guidance were conflicting and  unclear  resulting  in
this situation.

The DPPPE advisory states “Basically, the member had LASIK eye surgery
when regulations did  not  allow  it  for  his  career  field.”   This
statement conflicts with the DPSFM advisory.  The  advisory  fails  to
mention that all medical  PRP  related  issues  are  referred  to  and
decided by the base  medical  subject  matter  experts  and  is  their
responsibility to inform and advise commanders of all medical  related
issues affecting squadron members.  He states that he sought  approval
and guidance from both the flight surgeon  and  the  base  optometrist
prior  to  undergoing   LASIK   vision   correction   satisfying   PRP
requirements.

Misinformation, unclear policy and  inaccurate  guidance  lay  at  the
foundation of this predicament.  With the exception of  the  contested
OPR, his performance in the Air Force both prior  to  and  after  this
event has been  outstanding.   He  believes  this  referral  OPR  that
effectively ends his Air Force career is unjust in light  of  all  the
facts and circumstances surrounding this situation.

His complete submission is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The  evidence  of  record  indicates
that the applicant received LASIK  surgery  on  3 November  2000,  and
subsequently, was permanently decertified from his PRP duties  by  the
PRP certifying official.  As a result of his decertification from  the
PRP program, and due to his commander’s belief that  the  mission  was
affected due to his actions, the applicant was given a  referral  OPR.
After a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of  this  case,
we find no evidence, which would lead us to believe that the applicant
intentionally intended to deceive those within his chain  of  command.
It appears that  he  attempted  to  comply  with  the  directives  and
policies in effect at the time to gain permission for the surgery.  It
is also noted, that current policy permits LASIK surgery  for  members
of his career field.  Accordingly, in order to remove any injustice to
the applicant, we recommend that  his  records  be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

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 14 June 2000 through  31  January  2001,  be,  and  hereby  is,
declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01968 in  Executive  Session  on  10  December  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas s. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 1 Aug 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 3 Sep 03.




    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Oct 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Oct 03.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair



AFBCMR BC-2003-01968




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 14 June 2000
through 31 January 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
his records.







  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency