RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01816
            INDEX CODES:  111.01, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 Dec 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 14 Aug 03
through 13 Aug 04 be declared void and removed from his records.

His Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) prepared  for  consideration
by the Calendar Year 2004D (CY04D) and  Calendar  Year  2005C  (CY05C)
Captain Promotion Processes be declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

He be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested reports were inaccurate assessments of  his  performance
and do not display the whole person concept.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
first lieutenant, with a date of rank (DOR) of 20 Dec 03.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 1 Oct  01  and  Total
Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) is 20 Dec 01.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      13 Aug 03  Meets Standards
  *#  13 Aug 04  Does Not Meets Standards
      15 Apr 05  Meets Standards

* Contested Report.

# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of  captain  by  the  CY04D  Captain  Promotion
Process.

A Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI) was  conducted  based  on  18
allegations made by the applicant.  The  Investigating  Officer  found
that:

      l) Although the many complaints  of  applicant  revealed  a  few
procedural errors, the vast majority of the complaints were determined
to be unfounded. The evidence  indicates  the  applicant  was  treated
fairly throughout his assignment at Luke AFB  and  his  problems  were
self induced.

      2) The evidence revealed that  Major  M---  gave  the  applicant
daily verbal feedback and tried to mentor him every other day.  It was
the Investigating Officer’s opinion that written feedback  would  have
been  more  beneficial  considering  the   serious   deficiencies   in
applicant’s performance and behavior.

      3) The applicant should not have been  nominated  for  the  56th
Mission Support Squadron (56 MSS) Company Grade Officer (CGO)  of  the
Quarter.   Whi1e  management's  intentions  were  good,  the  evidence
indicated the applicant’s performance and  attitude  were  substandard
everywhere  he'd  been,  including  the  quarter  in  question.    The
applicant  truly  believed  that  he  had  done  special  things   and
nominating him for this award when his performance did  not  merit  it
did nothing but send him mixed messages.

      4) The applicant was missing an OPR.  Major M--- and Lt Col L---
should refer to AFI 36-2406 and determine the best way to document the
applicant’s work during the time period in question.

            5) The 56th Services Squadron (56 SVS) should continue  to
evaluate the applicant over a 90-day period.  The  30-day  and  90-day
feedbacks would help Major M--- make a retention recommendation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP reviewed this application and recommended denial  indicating
the purpose of the evaluation system is to provide a  reliable,  long-
term, cumulative record of performance and  potential  based  on  that
performance.  Performance is most  important  for  successful  mission
accomplishment.  It is also important for development  of  skills  and
leadership abilities and in  determining  who  will  be  selected  for
advancement through assignments, promotions, and so on.  The rater  is
responsible for ensuring performance is documented  accurately.   When
documenting adverse information, raters must  consider  the  fact  the
majority of Air Force personnel serve their entire career  with  honor
and distinction;  therefore,  failure  to  document  misconduct  which
reflect departure  from  the  core  values  of  the  Air  Force  is  a
disservice to all personnel competing for promotion.

According to AFPC/DPPP, the applicant's entire appeal is based on  his
performance as a "whole."  The fact that he was CGO  of  the  Quarter,
received letters of appreciation, and nominated for other awards  does
not outweigh the misconduct in hand.  The rater has the  authority  to
determine if the misconduct should  be  documented  in  a  performance
report.  In this case, the applicant received a  referral  report  for
unprofessionalism, inappropriate  comments,  lack  of  service  before
self, and lapse in judgment.  It is obvious  the  applicant  had  more
than an isolated  incident  which  resulted  in  the  “Does  Not  Meet
Standards” marking.

The  applicant  failed  to  provide  any   supporting   documents   to
substantiate the information on the performance report was inaccurate.
 In addition, the report of investigation provided by the  ratee  does
not substantiate any claims made by the applicant except for a missing
report (which is not part of this appeal).  Therefore, the  Board  can
only determine the report is  accurate.   It  was  obvious  the  ratee
believes certain performance factors were left out of the report based
on his accomplishments.  However, the fact remains it was the  rater's
decision to document any performance factors he/she deems necessary to
be placed on the report. Personal opinion and lack  of  evidence  does
not warrant removal of this report.

(Examiner’s Note:  The advisory from  AFPC/DPPP  appeared  to  contain
information, particularly in  the  “RECOMMENDATIONS”  portion  of  the
advisory, which did not apply to the applicant).

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Sep
05 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit D).

By letter, dated 29 Nov 05, the applicant requested that his  “Do  Not
Promote” PRFs also be  removed  from  his  records,  and  that  he  be
provided SSB consideration based on the new information obtained  from
a CDI, which is attached at Exhibit E.

By electronic mail (e-mail), dated 5 Dec 05,  the  applicant  provided
additional documentary evidence for the Board’s  consideration,  which
is attached Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial indicating the CDI did  not  substantiate
the contested OPR and  PRFs  were  completed  inaccurately.   The  CDI
specifically stated the evidence indicated the applicant  was  treated
fairly throughout his assignment at Luke Air Force Base (AFB) and  his
problems were self induced.  In AFPC/DPPP’s view,  the  applicant  has
failed to provide supporting evidence to substantiate his claim.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachments,  is  at
Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  provided  a  response
indicating the CDI substantiated he was missing  an  OPR.   It  should
have been accomplished by Lt Col L---.  This makes the date  and  time
periods for the subsequent report questionable.  There was no  mention
in the advisory of this  obvious  discrepancy  in  the  advisory.   He
requests that his supporting documentation  be  reviewed  so  that  an
accurate portrayal of his performance can be conveyed.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his  appeal  sufficient  to
convince us that corrective action is warranted.  We note the evidence
of record included a CDI  which  concluded  that  there  were  serious
deficiencies in the applicant’s performance and behavior.   There  was
no evidence of any unfair  treatment  of  the  applicant,  rather  his
problems were self induced.  In view of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of  sufficient  evidence  the  contested  OPR  and  PRFs  were
inaccurate assessments of his performance and promotion potential,  we
conclude  the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain   his   burden   of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

4.  We note the aforementioned CDI did find  that  the  applicant  was
missing an OPR.  However, it did not specify the time period  the  OPR
should have been prepared.  Furthermore, the applicant has not made  a
specific request to have a missing OPR included in his record, nor has
he provided such an OPR for inclusion in his record.  If the applicant
were to do so, we would be inclined to reconsider this appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01816 in Executive Session on 7 Feb 06, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 Sep 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 29 Nov 05.
    Exhibit F.  Electronic mail from applicant, dtd 5 Dec 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 28 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 06.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 10 Jan 06.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair