RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03086
            INDEX CODE 111.01  111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 28 Feb 02 be removed from
his records [and, if still a matter of record when the  Calendar  Year
2004A  (CY04A)  Lieutenant  Colonel  (LTC)  Central  Selection   Board
convenes on 1 Mar 04, he be afforded  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)
consideration].

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR is in violation of AFI 36-2401 and 36-2406 because it contains
inaccurate statements, was not classified as a  referral  report,  and
had insufficient supervision. The  rater’s  supervision  was  actually
less than 30 days of the 151-day training period. There was no contact
between his new supervisor and the rater, who was at another location,
and  the  additional  rater  had  no  first-hand  knowledge   of   his
performance. The OPR does not reflect  his  accomplishments,  contains
invalid and vague statements, and is clearly derogatory in nature.  It
should have been referred to him  so  he  could  rebut  the  comments.
Further, he was not relocated to the J M O T E (JMO-T) but to the P  T
& T Xxx (Xxx). This is not a subtle difference in job titles and  this
statement should be eliminated from the OPR. The report is contrary to
applicable AFIs and, if not removed, will have a  damaging  effect  on
his promotion chances during the CY04A LTC board.

The applicant’s immediate supervisor provided a  supporting  statement
and a copy of an AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet,  dated  29
Mar 02 for the period 12 Nov 01 through 28 Feb 02. [Note: This  report
was optional and is not in the applicant’s  records.]  The  supervisor
indicated that, prior to the applicant’s arrival, the  XXXXXX  (XXXXX)
Deputy  Surgeon  General  requested  he   document   the   applicant’s
performance while under  his  supervision  with  an  AF  Form  77.  He
complied with this request and  advised  that,  prior  to  the  form’s
submission, there was no contact between himself  and  the  rater  and
very limited contact with the additional rater.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the grade of major with  a  date
of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 00.

The 28 Feb 02 OPR, which  is  designated  as  a  Change  in  Reporting
Official (CRO) report, reflects the  applicant  was  assigned  as  the
Chief of Medical Readiness and Training to the Office of  the  Command
Surgeon, HQ XXXX, at XXXX AFB, XX. The report indicates the  applicant
met  all  performance  factors.  The  rater  commented  the  applicant
developed a guidebook “upon request,” a talking  paper/guidance  “when
asked,” and would be a valuable  contributor  “with  mentorship.”  The
additional rater commented that the applicant was “relocated” to JMO-T
for a better skills match.

The additional rater of the contested OPR  became  the  rater  on  the
subsequent OPR closing 28 Feb 03, which is designated an annual report
and which identified the applicant as the Deputy Program  Manager  for
the P T and T Xxx at XXXX AFB.

The applicant was considered, but not selected, for the grade  of  LTC
below-the-promotion-zone (BPZ) by the  CY02A  and  CY02C  LTC  boards,
which convened on 19 Feb 02 and 3 Dec 02, respectively.  According  to
HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, the CY04A LTC Central Selection board is scheduled  to
convene on 1 Mar 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE advises the applicant filed a similar  appeal  with  the
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB),  which  asked  him  to  provide
supporting   documentation   indicating   there    was    insufficient
supervision, an incorrect rater on the report, or a statement from the
rater as to why  he  wrote  the  report  if  he  was  not  the  rater.
Documentation proving the rater was not his assigned rater  still  has
not been provided. The letter provided by the  applicant’s  supervisor
[emphasis advisory’s] during the reporting period  clearly  states  he
was to provide an AF Form 77 to the rater  for  an  evaluation  to  be
accomplished. The supervisor further states to his knowledge a  change
of reporting official making him the rater as the  applicant  contends
never occurred. AFI 36-2401 does not require the designated  rater  to
be the immediate supervisor. AFI 36-2406 allows commanders to  deviate
from the normal (supervisory) rating  chain  when  necessary  to  meet
grade requirements or to accommodate unique organizational  structures
and situations. Many Air Force members are geographically separated or
on different shifts from their rater; however, individuals  performing
duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision is not a  basis
to void a performance report. In this case, the  applicant  apparently
was either on loan or matrixed to another organization but  maintained
his rating chain at his assigned unit. The statements referred  to  by
the applicant are not derogatory nor do they imply he was not  meeting
standards; therefore, the report  is  not  a  referral.  While  it  is
unclear  based  on  the  documentation  (other  than  the  applicant’s
allegation itself) exactly how the  organization  was  structured,  it
actually appears the rating chain was familiar with his location.  The
evidence is primarily  opinionated  and  the  rating  chain  does  not
provide support. Therefore denial is recommended. However,  to  better
reflect exactly where the applicant performed  his  duties,  recommend
Section I (8) be changed to read: “Office of the Cmd Surgeon, HQ XXXX,
XXXXX AFB, XX, with duty at P T and T Xxx, XXXXX Army Medical  Center,
XX.”

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO has nothing further to add to the DPPPE advisory. If the
recommended changes to Section I (8) are made,  they  should  be  made
before the CY04A board convenes. If not,  and  the  applicant  is  not
selected for promotion, he will probably submit a request for SSB as a
result of incorrect data on his OPR.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He does not contend that 28 Feb 02 OPR rater was not his actual  rater
but rather that she was not his direct supervisor. She had no  contact
with his actual supervisor in  the  preparation  of  this  report.  He
doubts  any  rater  would  willingly  provide   documentation   to   a
subordinate who is requesting to have an OPR removed. The evidence  he
has already provided clearly shows that his supervisor had no  contact
with the rater and that a disparity does exist between the AF Form  77
and the contested OPR. He specifically identified those areas  of  the
OPR that he feels are derogatory and will have a  damaging  effect  on
his upcoming promotion board. Further, the JMO-T and the Xxx  are  two
separate and distinct organizations  having  no  relationship  between
them. JMO-T is located at US XXXXX Command, Camp XXXXX and the Xxx  is
located at XXXXX Army Medical Center. He was never relocated to JMO-T,
nor did he ever work there. At the  very  least,  the  OPR  should  be
corrected to reflect accurate information.

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
report. The author of the AF Form 77 indicates he had no contact  with
the rater and very limited  contact  with  the  additional  rater.  As
instructed, he rendered an AF Form 77, but  in  our  view  the  rating
chain appears to have given his input little  regard.  The  difference
between the comments in the positive AF Form 77 and the lackluster OPR
were striking. The additional rater’s  erroneous  assertion  that  the
applicant was “relocated” also leads us to question  the  accuracy  of
the entire evaluation. Given this uncertainty,  we  are  uncomfortable
with  the  OPR’s  questionable  comments  remaining  available  for  a
selection board’s review. As  the  applicant’s  promotion  opportunity
could be unfairly disadvantaged, we conclude  the  28  Feb  02  report
should be voided in order to avoid any possibility of an injustice. If
the contested OPR has not  been  removed  when  the  CY04A  LTC  board
convenes,  we  further  recommend  the  applicant  be   afforded   SSB
consideration for that board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the  Field  Grade
Officer Performance Report (OPR),  AF  Form  707A,  rendered  for  the
period 1 October 2001 through 28 February 2002 be  declared  void  and
removed from his records.

It is further recommended that, if the OPR is still a matter of record
when the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)  Central
Selection Board convenes, he be considered for promotion to the  grade
of LTC by a Special Selection Board for the CY04A Board.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 January 2004 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
                 Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2003-03086 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 29 Oct 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 Nov 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 03, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2003-03086




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
1 October 2001 through 28 February 2002 be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his records.

      It is further directed that, if the OPR is still a matter of
record when the Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC)
Central Selection Board convenes, he be considered for promotion to
the grade of LTC by a Special Selection Board for the CY04A Board.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency