RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01403
            INDEX CODE:  126.03
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 NOVEMBER 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the  period  of  5  March
2004 to 9 February 2005 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered an appeal to have  his
11 January 2005 OPR removed from his records,  and  elected  to  change  the
closeout date to 9 February 2005 vice voiding the report-resulting  in  this
appeal to the Air Force  Board  for  Correction  to  Military  Records.  The
ERAB's decision constitutes an injustice, as established  by  AFI  36-2406--
the original OPR dated 11 January 2005 contained an  inappropriate  comment.
AFI 36-2406 prohibits  evaluators  from  commenting  on  anything  occurring
outside the reporting period. Should evaluators wish to include  information
from  outside  the  reporting  period,  they  are  required  to  request  an
extension to the reporting period  prior  to  closing  out  the  report  and
including the information. The rating chain  of  the  11  January  2005  OPR
failed to adhere to those guidelines, invaliding the evaluation report.  The
spirit  of  the  AFI  governing  evaluation  reports  is  explicit  in   its
requirement to restrict comments  to  accomplishments/information  from  the
reporting period  of  the  report.  The  "remedy"  of  simply  changing  the
closeout date of the  report  chosen  by  the  ERAB  fails  to  address  the
original injustice. The leadership at Hanscom Air Force  Base  at  the  time
the report originally closed out was  required  to  process  the  report  in
accordance  with  Air  Force  instructions,  but  failed  to  do  so.   They
shoehorned a reference to  a  letter  of  reprimand  into  the  report  that
occurred after the closeout date, and simultaneously negated his  subsequent
chain of command's ability to consider the validity  and  inclusion  of  the
LOR in his 2006 OPR.

In support of his request applicant provided a personal letter,  OPRs,  ERAB
appeal package, and an email from ERAB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  is  currently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel with an effective date of rank of 1 August 1999.

During the period in question the applicant was serving as the 66th  Mission
Support Group Deputy Commander. On 31 January 2005, the  applicant  received
a Letter of Reprimand for a violation of Article 92 of the UMCJ, failure  to
obey a lawful  general  regulation.  On  22  February  2005,  his  commander
established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 21 March 2005, the applicant received a referral  OPR  rendered  for  the
period 5 March 2004 to 9 February 2005.

The  applicant  filed  an  appeal  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,       20 February  2004.
The ERAB corrected the report to close-out on 9 February 2005  to  authorize
the information placed in the OPR.  Based  on  the  change,  the  subsequent
report was corrected to read "10  January  2005  to  9  February  2005.  The
applicant submitted the request to the ERAB  in  October  2005  stating  the
comments pertaining to the LOR should not have  been  included  in  the  OPR
since the OPR originally closed out on 11  January  2005  and  the  LOR  was
dated 31 January 2005.

The applicant departed  Hanscom  AFB  on  11  February  2005.  The  original
requirement was for the OPR  to  close  out  30  days  prior  to  departure.
However, based on the rule to allow derogatory information be placed on  the
report, the close out date can be extended  up  to  the  day  prior  to  the
departure date. The ERAB determined the LOR information should be placed  in
the OPR and the close-out date of the  OPR  should  have  been  extended  to
include the derogatory information.

The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

            PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

                 12 Mar 00        MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
                 01 Sep 00        MS
                 01 Sep 01                         MS
                 04 Mar 02        MS
                 04 Mar 03        MS
                 04 Mar 04        MS
            *    09 Feb 05   Does Not Meet Standards

* - Contested Report
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial. The applicant states  the  evaluators  should
have requested an extension to the OPR in order to include  any  information
that occurred  outside  the  reporting  period.  AFI  36-2406,  para  3.7.5.
states, "if an incident or event occurs between the time  an  annual  report
closes and the time it becomes a matter of record that is  of  such  serious
significance that inclusion in that report is  warranted,  an  extension  of
the close-out date must be requested." This guidance is strictly for  annual
reports. The guidance for "CRO" reports is  stated  in  AFI  36-2406,  table
3.l, note 5b, which allows the report  to  close  out  "within  the  30  day
window" to include  derogatory  information.  In  addition,  the  ERAB  must
attempt to make all necessary corrections to an evaluation report  prior  to
voiding the report when corrections can be  made  without  invalidating  the
report.

AFPC/DPPPEP's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and asks  for  a  more  reasoned
evaluation of his appeal. Clearly, there was  information  in  his  original
OPR that violated the Air Force instruction 36-2406 regarding  inclusion  of
information from outside the reporting period. By merely changing the  dates
on the report, the Evaluation Report  Appeal  Board  failed  to  remedy  the
injustice resulting from the accomplishment of an evaluation report that  in
no way complies with the spirit and intent of  the  Air  Force  instruction.
Evaluation  reports  are  to  provide  timely   and   accurate   performance
reporting.  For  an  annual  report,  raters  are  required  to  request  an
extension from AFPC to include derogatory  information  prior  to  including
the information  and  changing  reporting  dates.  There  is  no  reasonable
explanation for having a different rule for Change of Report Official  (CRO)
OPRs. His rating chain took a dubious Letter of Reprimand  -  one  that  has
since been discounted and removed from his file by current  rating  chain  -
and effectively "sent it after him" to his next duty location  months  after
he departed Hanscom  AFB,  MA.  This  is  not  the  purpose  of  performance
reporting. The OPR that remains in his record constitutes an  injustice.  By
changing the dates, AFPC has removed the "error"  but  left  the  injustice.
Instead of accomplishing an OPR that met the spirit and intent of  the  AFI,
the rating chain and AFPC edited the report to approach compliance with  the
AFI, but left a glaring injustice.  If  the  information  contained  in  the
report was important enough to include, effectively destroying  his  career,
it was important enough to be done correctly.  It  wasn't.  The  information
itself was dubious, has been removed by his current rating chain, but  still
resides in an unfairly processed OPR.

Applicant's complete response 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice warranting removal of  the  OPR  for  the
period ending 9 February 2005.  We took careful notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinions and recommendation of the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   The  Board
found no evidence that supported his contention  the  administrative  action
taken by the ERAB to extend the OPR close-out date was improper  or  against
the  governing  regulation  applicable  to  “CRO”  reports.    Additionally,
evidence has not been provided to substantiate the contested report  is  not
a true and accurate assessment of his performance during the specified  time
period or that the comments  contained  in  the  report  were  in  error  or
contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, in  the
absence of persuasive 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 probable 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-2006-
01403 in Executive Session on 19 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
    Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2006-01403 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 5 Jun 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jun 06.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 21 Jun 06




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair