RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02138
                                  INDEX CODE:  111.02
                                  COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 JANUARY 2007


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for  the  period  of  13  June
2002 through 12 June 2003 be voided and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral OPR in question  is  a  serious  injustice  by  portraying  his
leadership performance and potential as being substandard and  marginal.   A
simple issue of miscommunication that should have been treated as  such  led
him to be wrongfully and unjustifiably accused by his chain  of  command  of
breaching a moral character standard –  loyalty.   Specifically,  he’s  been
accused of being disloyal to his former (retired) squadron commander.  As  a
result, this accusation and injustice was impetus  for  the  same  chain  of
command to prepare and approve as  a  matter  of  his  official  record,  an
unjust, sub-standard and extremely penalizing OPR that is not reflective  of
his true, demonstrated and  documented  outstanding  leadership  performance
and potential during the rating period in question.

The Evaluations Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denied his request to  void  the
OPR because they were not an investigative body and determined  he  was  not
in a position to evaluate his own performance.  The  ERAB  referred  him  to
the Equal Opportunity  and  Treatment  (EOT)_  community.   He  submitted  a
request for an EOT investigation; however, his case  was  denied  since  his
request was not  a  case  of  unlawful  discrimination.   The  Air  Mobility
Command Inspector General’s  (AMC/IG)  office  denied  his  request  for  an
investigation citing no  abuse  of  authority.   The  AMC  IG  suggested  he
consider appealing to  the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of  Military
Records (AFBCMR).

He is concerned that some senior officers have  wrongfully  and  inexcusably
accused a fellow officer of moral misconduct  (breach  of  loyalty)  and  in
turn crucified the same officer in his official record  of  performance  for
all future promotion board and hiring authorities to see.  But to date,  the
Air Force is unwilling  to  investigate  and  determine  the  truth.   Every
organization he’s presented his case to simply  refers  him  to  the  AFBCMR
even though the ERAB suggested an investigation be  launched.   His  request
to the AFBCMR is to void the OPR in question; however,  if  the  AFBCMR  has
the authority to direct the Air Force to  investigate  his  case,  he  would
welcome this action so that the truth may be revealed.

In support of his request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement;
copies of his OPRs and personal  data;  numerous  e-mails;  a  copy  of  his
Defense  Meritorious  Service  Medal  and  the  Meritorious  Service  Medal;
numerous letters associated with applicant’s request  for  an  investigation
into the wrongful accusation of moral misconduct; and an Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) letter dated 2 December 2004.  The applicant’s  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant  has  a
Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  and  a  Total  Active  Federal
Commissioned Service Date of 6 December 1987.  He was promoted to the  grade
of lieutenant colonel, effective and with a  date  of  rank  of  1  February
2003.  The applicant’s OSB contains  AF  Forms  707A,  Field  Grade  Officer
Performance Reports, (OPRs) beginning with the rating  period  2 April  1998
and ending on 12 June 2004 with overall ratings of “Meets  Standards.”   The
applicant received an AF Form 475, Education/Training  Records,  documenting
his completion of Air Command and  Staff  College  (Resident  Course).   The
following information is  provided  based  on  documents  submitted  by  the
applicant.

On 2 December 2004, a similar appeal by the  applicant  was  considered  and
denied by the ERAB.

On 29 December 2004, the applicant filed a Military Equal Opportunity  (MEO)
complaint against his rater for “wrong doing  and  unfair”  treatment.   The
MEO office determined his complaint was not an MEO issue  and  referred  him
to the IG office.

On 28 February 2005, the AMC/IG office reviewed the applicant’s  allegations
concerning abuse of authority by his previous chain-of-command with  respect
to their alleged inaccurate representation of his  OPR  for  the  period  13
June 1002 – 12 June 2003.  After a thorough examination  of  all  the  facts
and applicable guidance, a preponderance of the evidence showed  the  former
commander did not negligently apply OPR guidance  as  outlined  by  AFI  36-
2406.   Further  the  facts  also  indicated  the  personnel  actions  taken
regarding the OPR were reasonable.  As a result, the AMC/IG concluded  there
was  insufficient  justification  to  conduct  an  investigation   and   the
allegations were dismissed.

On 2 May 2005, the Headquarters Eighth Air Force  Commander  considered  the
applicant’s request for investigation concerning his  OPR  closing  12  June
2003.  The commander found the applicant’s complaint not within the  purview
of Article 138, UCMJ, since it was not timely filed  and  may  be  addressed
through   the   officer   performance   report   and   evaluation    system.
Additionally, the  commander  advised  him  that  since  his  complaint  had
already been investigated by the ERAB and AMC/IG, his next appeal should  be
to the AFBCMR.


_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied.  DPPP states the  additional
rater’s letter does not state the  applicant  was  disloyal  throughout  the
year, only  for  the  assignment  to  the  deployed  area.   Therefore,  the
markings in the front showing a “met standards” is appropriate  due  to  the
report covering  the  entire  year  and  not  just  that  timeframe  of  the
deployment.  DPPP advises that although the senior civilian  states  he  was
able to observe the applicant’s performance during the  contested  reporting
period, he also states that “he was not  in  the  position  to  legitimately
comment on the Air Fore officer evaluation report system  for  which  he  is
not accustomed to.”  Therefore, the senior civilian is unable to provide  an
accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance  to  provide  an  opinion
for this appeal.  In accordance  with  AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted
Evaluation Systems, additional  raters  and  reviewers  are  allowed  to  be
assigned after  the  report  close  out  date,  advises  DPPP.   Applicant’s
allegations pertaining  to  the  OPR  were  dismissed  due  to  insufficient
justification, therefore, the  report  is  an  accurate  assessment  of  the
applicant’s performance.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his case is not an objective  case  with  clear  black  and
white boundaries.  It is subjective at best which is supported  by  25  tabs
of clear and undisputable evidence that at the very  minimum  suggests,  and
in some instances proves, that he was unfairly accused of  moral  misconduct
which led to the wrongful inclusion of substandard word choice in  the  OPR.
Applicant states he wants and deserves a fair and accurate portrayal of  his
performance and potential.  Applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________



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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record, the Board is persuaded  that  the  contested  report  is  not  an
accurate reflection of the applicant’s  performance  during  the  period  in
question.  Circumstances in this case cause the Board to  believe  that  the
OPR may have been based upon personal  feelings  rather  than  an  objective
evaluation of the applicant’s performance.  The Board notes the word  choice
by the rater and additional rater  and  believes  these  statements  coupled
with the evidence of previous and subsequent  superior  performance  by  the
applicant, merits removal of the OPR for the period  ending  12  June  2003.
In view of the totality of the circumstances  involved,  it  is  conceivable
that the contested report  was  based  on  personal  bias  and  not  on  the
applicant’s performance and potential.  In view of the foregoing, and in  an
effort to offset any possibility of an injustice, the Board  recommends  the
OPR be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

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, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 13 June 2002 through  12  June
2003 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 9 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
            Mr. August Doddato, Member
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

All members voted to correct  the  record  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-02138 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 05, w/atch.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 7 Sep 05.

      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 05.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Sep 05.




                                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2005-02138


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 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the Field Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 13 June
2002 through 12 June 2003 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.




                                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                                       Director
                                                       Air Force Review
                 Boards Agency