RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01765
            INDEX NUMBER:  107.00; 131.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 Nov 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 31
Aug 01 through 31 Jul 02 be declared void and removed from his record.

He be awarded a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for the period  29 Dec
98 to 1 Aug 02.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by
special  selection  board  (SSB)  for  the  Calendar  Year  (CY)  2003
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board with the corrected record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  has  previously  appealed  the  contested  OPR  on  two   separate
occasions.

His rater’s comment in Section VI, Line 9, “an invaluable  asset  when
motivated to perform,” misleads anyone reading the report  to  believe
he was not motivated to perform.

His additional rater’s comment in Section VII, Line 5,  “…  excels  at
operational flying,” is meant to convey that he was  a  good  aviator,
but should not be placed in a leadership role.

He filed  an  anonymous  Inspector  General  complaint  prior  to  his
additional rater on the contested OPR’s arrival.  However,  a  portion
of the investigation  occurred  after  his  additional  rater  on  the
contested report assumed command.  He  believes  that  his  additional
rater feared that the investigation would reveal that  the  violations
had continued on his watch.

His additional rater revealed in an e-mail to  him  that  he  was  not
happy with him.  His additional rater carried grudges and  produced  a
list of personnel, both officer and enlisted, he had determined  would
not receive permanent change of station  medals.   He  challenges  the
Board to find justification in his OPRs to support denial of  a  medal
when he was reassigned.

He is basing his claim of an inaccurate OPR primarily on the issue  of
job performance and feedback.  He does not  believe  that  the  reason
given by his rater is supported by the facts.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provides  10  attachments  of
documents primarily related to his efforts  to  appeal  the  contested
OPR.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade  of  major.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 27 Apr  83.   A
review of the applicant’s last ten OPRs  reveals  overall  ratings  of
meets standards.  The applicant has eight nonselections to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY99A, CY99B, CY00A, CY01B, CY02B, CY03A,
and CY04B, and CY05 Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP indicates in  their  advisory  that  AFPC/DPPPEP  recommends
denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing  31  Jul  02
and that AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of  the  request  to  grant  the
applicant an MSM.  They conclude that there is therefore no  basis  to
grant the applicant promotion consideration by SSB.

The applicant contends the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)  did
not answer the issue of the lack of feedback.  However, they note that
in a letter, dated 4 Mar 04, feedback was addressed.  They  note  that
the letter stated  that  “while  current  Air  Force  policy  requires
performance feedback  for  personnel,  a  direct  correlation  between
information provided during feedback sessions and the  assessments  on
evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  There may be occasions
when feedback was not provided during a  reporting  period.   Lack  of
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to challenge  the
accuracy or justness of a report.  Evaluators must  confirm  they  did
not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly resulted in
an unfair evaluation.”

The applicant contests the comments made  by  the  rater.   The  rater
provided a memo stating the comments he made were accurate  statements
of the applicant’s performance.  The responsibility of the rater is to
accurately assess the ratee’s  performance  and  document  it  on  the
performance report.

The applicant believes he was reprised against for  submitting  an  IG
complaint.  To prove reprisal, the applicant  must  file  a  complaint
with MEO and submit  a  report  of  investigation  substantiating  his
claim.

They are unable to verify a recommendation or award  of  the  MSM  was
downgraded or ever submitted.  The applicant applied for the Air Force
Commendation Medal through Congressional channels  in  2001.   He  was
sent the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Section  526,
rules for applying for decorations.  He  did  not  provide  additional
documentation to support his claim.  Decorations are not automatically
awarded upon completion of a  TDY,  departure  for  an  assignment  or
separation from active duty.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation  the  applicant  indicates
there is an obvious disagreement between he and  AFPC/DPPP  since  his
rater has confirmed he did not provide feedback.  The applicant states
that feedback would have clarified his rater  and  additional  rater’s
incorrect perception regarding his  performance.   He  maintains  that
lack of feedback directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.   Further,
if the comments in his OPR were retaliation for an IG complaint,  then
feedback would have raised the issue and given him an  opportunity  to
defend himself.

The applicant states that his rater indicated he wrote  the  statement
in his OPR, not that he considered it an  accurate  statement  of  his
performance.  The applicant goes on to state that his rater stated  he
considered it a  fair  statement  when  he  compared  the  applicant’s
performance “to that of his two fighter pilot friends” who  were  also
assigned to the squadron.  The applicant states that  his  rater  does
not make it clear what performance he was comparing.   He  states  the
rater was also comparing apples and oranges as his  two  friends  were
assigned to the same crew position as the rater  and  understood  what
their job was and how well they performed it.  Applicant  states  that
his rater had no idea of what the applicant’s job was or how  well  he
performed it.  The applicant indicates he is curious as  to  when  the
rater put the statement in his OPR as  it  was  not  in  the  original
version.  He has written his rater and asked this  question,  but  has
not received a response.

The applicant states if he could prove he  was  reprised  against  for
submitting an IG complaint, he would have taken  the  route  AFPC/DPPP
offers.  He states he is “merely” trying to provide background  as  to
why those comments were inserted into his OPR.

The applicant attaches a copy of the DÉCOR 6 that his commander denied
his submission for an MSM.  Applicant indicates  that  the  Air  Force
evaluation is completely wrong regarding his applying to Congress  for
a Air Force Commendation Medal.  He has never applied to Congress  for
anything.  The applicant states that his rater initially supported his
recommendation for the MSM, but signed the DÉCOR 6 denying it  because
the commander indicated he would not support it.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  Although  the  applicant  opines
that lack of feedback directly contributed to an erroneous rating,  he
has not provided sufficient evidence that his rater would  have  rated
him differently if feedback  had  been  provided.   Additionally,  the
applicant has failed to provide sufficient  evidence  to  support  his
contentions regarding award of the MSM and consideration for promotion
to lieutenant colonel by SSB.  Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence
to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the
application was denied without a personal  appearance;  and  that  the
application will only be reconsidered upon  the  submission  of  newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket  Number  BC-2005-
01765 in Executive Session  on  2  and  9  November  2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 19 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 05,
                w/atch.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair