RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03320
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 MAY 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

      a.    Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending
8 June 2001 be voided and removed from her records.

      b.    She receive a direct promotion to  the  grade  of  colonel
upon removal of the contested OPR or as an alternative,  promotion  to
the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is unjust, not objective and does not reflect her
actual performance.  Her rater permitted  a  personality  conflict  to
influence his objectivity.  The rater  placed  undue  emphasis  on  an
incident and changed the signed report as retribution for bringing  to
his  attention  that  performance  feedback  was  not   conducted   in
accordance with the governing regulation.  She  further  contends  her
rater did not provide formal feedback until eight days  prior  to  the
closeout date of the reporting period and his statement  of  providing
informal feedback 14 times is incorrect and violates  the  regulation;
and  the  final  performance  report,  signed  on  28  June  2001  was
downgraded from the previously signed report dated 9 June 2001,  which
was an inaccurate reflection of her contributions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of colonel by the CY04A and CY05A  Colonel  Central  Selection  Boards
(CSBs).

The applicant submitted  an  application  to  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal  Board  (ERAB).   On  26  August  2005,  the  ERAB  denied  the
applicant’s appeal.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a lt col is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                  8 Jun 00        Meets Standards
                 *8 Jun 01        Meets Standards
                  8 Jun 02        Meets Standards
                  6 May 03        Meets Standards
                **6 May 04        Meets Standards
               ***6 May 05        Meets Standards

*Contested Report.
**Top report at the time of the CY04A Col CSB.
***Top report at the time of the CY05A Col CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states although the applicant received only one feedback
session eight days before the closeout date of the  report  that  does
not invalidate the report.  The rater is required to give  a  specific
reason why the feedback session was not  given.   The  fact  that  the
applicant does not agree with the rater’s  reason  is  irrelevant  and
does not make the report erroneous.  A lack of counseling or feedback,
by itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness  of
a report.  Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states,
“A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session
does not by itself invalidate an EPR.”  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.   For
example, if after a positive feedback session, the evaluator discovers
serious problems, the  evaluator  must  record  the  problems  in  the
evaluation report even when it disagrees with the  previous  feedback.
Also, there may be an occasion when feedback was not  provided  during
the reporting period.  The evaluator must confirm the lack of feedback
directly resulted in an unfair evaluation.

They further state the applicant stated she reviewed the report  prior
to it being filed in the Unit Personnel Record Group
(UPRG).  She further  stated  after  reviewing  the  report  that  she
discussed the inaccuracies in the report and voiced her concerns  that
no  performance  feedback  was  conducted.   AFI  36-2406,   paragraph
3.8.10.1 strictly prohibits  the  ratee  from  reviewing  the  report,
unless a referral, prior to its being filed in the UPRG.   The  report
the applicant reviewed is considered a working copy until  the  report
is filed in the UPRG and can be changed at any time.

The applicant contends that the contested  report  contained  a  false
statement pertaining to receiving informal  feedback  14  times.   She
refers to  the  proper  procedure  when  documenting  whether  or  not
feedback was  conducted.   The  rater  provided  a  statement  in  the
feedback areas to explain  why  the  feedback  was  so  close  to  the
closeout of the report.  The applicant also stated the word “informal”
is a “nonterm” and is  not  defined  in  the  AFI  36-2406.   However,
paragraph  2.10  specifically  states,  “while   documented   feedback
sessions  are  required  they  do  not  replace  informal   day-to-day
feedback.”   This  statement  explains  that  informal  feedback   was
feedback provided on  a  daily  basis.   Therefore,  the  comment  was
appropriate and within the guidance of the AFI.

Furthermore, disagreements in the work place are not  unusual  and  in
themselves, do not substantiate  an  evaluator  cannot  be  objective.
AFPC/DPPPO states that subordinates are required  to  abide  by  their
superior’s decisions.  They further state if there was  a  personality
conflict between the  applicant  and  the  rater  which  was  of  such
magnitude  the  rater  could  not  be  objective,  they  believe   the
additional  rater  would  have  known  about  it.   Moreover,   if   a
personality conflict were as evident as the applicant perceived,  they
believe  the  additional  rater  would   have   made   any   necessary
adjustment(s) to the applicant’s OPR.  The applicant has not  provided
specific instances based on firsthand observation  which  substantiate
the relationship between the applicant and her rater was  strained  to
the point an objective evaluation was impossible.   The  documentation
the applicant provided in support of her request does not reflect that
her evaluators could not be objective in their assessment of her  duty
performance.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge an  OPR,
it is necessary to hear from all the members of the  rating  chain—not
only for support, but also  for  clarification  or  explanation.   The
applicant has failed to provide any information or  support  from  the
rating chain on the contested OPR.

Regarding the applicant’s request for direct promotion,  Congress  and
DOD have made clear their intent that when errors are
perceived to ultimately affect promotion, they should be addressed and
resolved through the use of an SSB.

Based on the evidence provided, AFPC/DPPPO recommends the  applicant’s
request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force  evaluation  and  disagrees  with
their recommendations and basic assumptions, principles, and opinions.

She states if Air Force policy is to  view  an  evaluation  report  as
accurate as written when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record,  then  a
necessary extension of that statement is that each  evaluation  report
must be defended as valid by the Air Force, when and  if,  challenged.
This approach results in a less than objective review.   Unfortunately
in her case, the office of primary responsibility  elected  to  defend
the disputed report by ignoring relevant evidence, making  unsupported
conclusions, and shifting blame.

The applicant further stated she did not request the contested OPR  be
voided simply because  she  did  not  receive  formal  feedback.   She
requested to void the report based on  a  personality  conflict  which
influenced her rater’s objectivity, and placed an  undue  emphasis  on
one incident – discussing inaccuracies in the OPR given to her by  the
rater’s Executive Officer, and that she received formal feedback eight
days before the report close-out.

The applicant also states the AFPC/DPPPE implies in  paragraph  c.  of
the evaluation that she committed a breach of trust by  reviewing  the
report.  At times during her career it was  customary  for  raters  to
show ratees draft reports and solicit their comments.   The  Executive
Officer told her that the report was forwarded to  the  Wing  and  was
probably already in her records.  She would have never  sought  out  a
copy of the report and would have not discussed it with her rater.

She further believes the  rater  included  information  that  was  not
required.  The applicant indicates the AFI states as  follows:  “enter
the date the most recent feedback session  was  conducted.   If  ratee
should have received feedback, but did not, give honest and  plausible
reasons why.  If no feedback was required,  enter  ‘NA.’”   The  rater
wrote  “informal  feedback  14  times,”  which   denotes   poor   duty
performance.  Any Air Force officer will tell you that a comment  such
as this is a career ending statement.  It was not required by the AFI,
but was intended and did berate her performance.

In regard to paragraph f. of the evaluation, she has always abided  by
her superior’s decision.  She simply brought to his attention that the
report was not reflective of contributions and the statement  that  he
gave her feedback on 4 April 2001 was not correct.  She did that in  a
professional, respectful manner.  She was never disobedient,  nor  did
she mention to him that she would challenge the report.   She  further
states to conclude that no significant  personality  conflict  existed
because the additional rater would have necessarily  known  and  taken
action defies logic.  Her witnesses supported her conclusion that  she
was treated unfairly, that there was a personality conflict, and  that
the report was  unjust.   Her  witness  statements  were  ignored  and
minimized.  Unfortunately, it appears that AF/DPPPE is  not  favorably
considering evidence that does not  support  its  presumption  that  a
report is accurate.

The applicant believes to remedy this  situation  fairly  would  be  a
direct promotion to colonel.  She believes the report in question  has
negatively affected her opportunities for promotion recommendation and
consideration for senior service school.  Removing the report from her
records and requiring her to meet a supplemental board is analogous to
cutting a branch off a poison  fruit  tree;  regardless  of  how  well
intended, the tree will still bear poison fruit.

A copy of Applicant’s response is attached 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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or  an  injustice.   We  took  note  of  the
documentation the  applicant  provided  in  support  of  her  request,
however, the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force and adopts its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  their
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that  she
has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Although the  applicant
was not provided a feedback session until  eight  days  prior  to  the
closeout date of the report, according to Air Force policy,  the  lack
of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient  to  challenge
the accuracy or justness of  a  report.   The  applicant’s  contention
regarding inappropriateness of the statement  that  informal  feedback
was provided 14 times is  duly  noted.   However,  the  governing  AFI
states “while documented feedback sessions are required, they  do  not
replace informal day-to-day feedback.”  Therefore, the majority of the
Board is not convinced her rater’s comment was inappropriate  and  not
within the guidance of the AFI.  In addition, disagreements in the
work place are not unusual, and do not alone  support  the  conclusion
that an evaluator cannot be objective.  Accordingly, if a  personality
conflict existed between the applicant and the rater, where the  rater
could not be objective, the majority must assume the additional  rater
would have known and would have made  any  necessary  changes  to  the
applicant’s performance report.  We  note  the  additional  rater  and
reviewer  concurred  in  the  rater’s  comments.    Furthermore,   the
applicant has not presented clear and convincing  evidence  reflecting
that a personality conflict existed between  herself  and  the  rater.
Even  though  the  applicant  provided  letters  of   support,   these
statements are not from individuals in her  direct  rating  chain  and
while laudatory, these statements do not  show  that  the  applicant’s
evaluators could not be objective in  their  assessment  of  her  duty
performance.  Without the support from her rating chain, the  majority
must assume the report in question was accurate as written.

4.    In regard to the applicant’s request for direct  promotion,  the
majority further notes that officers compete for promotion  under  the
“whole person” concept whereby a multitude of  factors  are  carefully
assessed by selection board members prior to scoring the records.   In
addition, officers may be qualified but – in the judgment of selection
board members vested  with  discretionary  authority  to  score  their
records – may not be the best qualified of  those  available  for  the
limited  number  of  promotion  vacancies.   Consequently,  a   direct
promotion should be granted only  under  extraordinary  circumstances;
i.e., a showing that the officer’s record cannot be  reconstructed  in
such a manner so as to permit him/her to compete for  promotion  on  a
fair and equitable basis; a showing that  the  officer  exercised  due
diligence in pursuing timely and effective relief and lastly, that had
the original errors not occurred, the probability of his or her  being
selected for promotion would have been extremely high.  We do not find
these factors in this case.  In view of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the requested relief.

5.    The applicant's case is adequately documented and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The majority of the panel finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-03320  in  Executive  Session  on  23  February  2006  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

By majority vote, the Board recommended denying the  application.  Mr.
Groner voted to grant the relief requested  but  does  not  desire  to
submit a Minority Report.   The  following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 05, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Officer Selection Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 Dec 05.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Jan 06.




                             LAURENCE M. GRONER
                             Panel Chair








MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                          FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully considered the rationale of the Board majority;
however, I agree with the minority member that the applicant's Officer
Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 9 June 2000 through 8
June 2001, should be voided and she be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of colonel.

      The applicant contends her rater permitted a personality conflict to
influence his objectivity; that he did not provide formal feedback until
eight days prior to the closeout date of the reporting period; that the
final performance report, signed on 28 June 2001 was downgraded from the
previously signed report dated 9 June 2001, which was an accurate
reflection of her contributions, and that her rater placed undue emphasis
on an incident and changed the signed report as retribution for bringing to
his attention that her performance feedback was not conducted in accordance
with the governing regulation.

      In deciding this case, I find it highly unusual that the rater
asserts he provided the applicant informal feedback on 14 occasions but
made no adverse comments in Section VI. I note that there was a lack of
timeliness with respect to her feedback. More significantly, however, I
noted the statements provided from two senior colonels and a brigadier
general questioning the rater’s integrity and attesting to his inability to
treat the applicant fairly.  These statements lead me to believe the
contested OPR may not be an accurate depiction of the applicant's
performance at the time it was rendered.  Therefore, I believe the
applicant’s overall record of performance prior to and subsequent to the
contested report warrants resolving the benefit of any doubt in her favor.
Accordingly, I direct the OPR rendered for the period 9 June 2000 through 8
June 2001, be voided and the applicant's corrected record be provided
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of colonel by Special
Selection Board for Calendar Year 2004A (CY04A) and any subsequent board
for which the OPR closing 8 June 2001 was a matter of record.




                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                       Director
                       Air Force Review Boards Agency





AFBCMR BC-2005-03320




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 the Field Grade Officer
Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 707a, rendered for the period 9 June 2000
through 8 June 2001, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her
records.

      It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the
grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2004A
(CY04A) Central Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for
which the OPR closing 8 June 2001 was a matter of record.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency