RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01686
            INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Dec 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPR) for the periods 1 Mar 02 through
28 Feb 03 and 1 Mar 03 through 2 Jul 03 be modified by adding  command
push and professional military education (PME) comments in Sections VI
and  VII,  and  the  feedback  dates  be  removed  and  replaced  with
statements  indicating  no  performance  feedback  was   accomplished.
[Note: Presumably the applicant  would  also  want  Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for the  Calendar  Year  2004A  (CY04A)  and
CY04C Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Central Selection Boards (CSBs)].

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

These reports do not accurately reflect his duty  performance  at  the
time.  After contacting the HQ Pacific Air  Forces  (PACAF)  Inspector
General (IG) office, he also believes the reports are directly related
to his transfer to a new duty location and the successful removal of a
previous HQ PACAF/SGX performance report (28 Feb  02)  with  the  same
rater through the AFBCMR. While PME, stratification and  command  push
statements are optional,  they  are  vital  for  promotion  and  their
absence on the contested OPRs would indicate his duty performance  was
substandard.  The lack of these comments directly contributed  to  his
nonselection for LTC and subsequent discharge from active duty. He did
not provide reaccomplished reports because the  rater  and  additional
rater  were  unresponsive  to  his   requests   for   providing   such
modifications.

In support of his request, applicant provided documents pertaining  to
his earlier AFBCMR appeal, an Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
application and decisional memo, non-selection counseling assessments,
and related materials. His complete submission, with  attachments,  is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was a major with  a  date
of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 00.

On 22 Jan 04, the Board granted the  applicant’s  earlier  request  to
void the 28 Feb 02 OPR.  The OPR reflected the applicant was  assigned
as the Chief of Medical Readiness and Training to the  Office  of  the
Command Surgeon, HQ PACAF, at Hickam AFB, HI.  The  additional  rater,
who was the Chief of the Medical Readiness Division  at  HQ  PACAF  at
Hickam AFB, commented that the applicant was “relocated” to the  Joint
Medical Operations Technology Element (JMO-T)  for  a  “better  skills
match” when in fact he had been assigned to the Pacific  Telehealth  &
Technology HUI.

For an accounting of  the  facts  and  circumstances  the  applicant’s
earlier appeal and the decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit C.

The additional rater of the voided 28 Feb 02 OPR became the  rater  of
the now contested 28 Feb 03 and 2 Jul 03 OPRs.  The OPRs reflected the
applicant’s duty title as  Deputy  Program  Manager  for  the  Pacific
Telehealth and Technology HUI at Hickam.  The  two  contested  reports
both report that the last performance feedback was conducted on  8 Nov
02.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of LTC by the CY04A (1 Mar 04) and CY04C (6 Dec 04)  CSBs.   The
Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the two boards  had  overall
recommendations of “Promote.”

The applicant submitted a similar appeal to the ERAB on 29 Nov 05.  He
indicated the rater and additional rater of the two contested  reports
did not respond to his request to modify the reports.  However,  based
on HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s 7 and 8 Mar 06 emails,  his  package  was  returned
without action because he did not have the required support from  both
evaluators.

The applicant was subsequently released from active duty on 31 Aug  06
and transferred to the USAF Reserve where he is currently  serving  in
the grade of major.

An OPR profile since Dec 98 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING               EVALUATION FOR POTENTIAL

        20 Dec 98                       Meets Standards (MS) - PME
        20 Dec 99                       MS
        20 Dec 00                       MS - Stratification/PME
        30 Sep 01                       MS
       [28 Feb 02                       MS - Voided by AFBCMR Action]
       *28 Feb 03                       MS - Feedback 8 Nov 02
       * 2 Jul 03                       MS - Feedback 8 Nov 02
              2      Jul      04                            MS       -
Stratification/PME/Command
              1      Jun      05                            MS       -
Stratification/PME/Command

 *Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends against modifying  the  contested  OPRs  and
affording the applicant SSB consideration.  The applicant provided  no
proof that the reports were in error or whether or not counseling  was
accomplished.  A lack of feedback is insufficient grounds to  void  or
change a report.  An OPR is not erroneous or unfair because  a  member
believes it contributed to nonselection.  The two reports in  question
are consistent with his complete record of performance, which shows  a
consistent  lack  of  stratification   and   inconsistent   job   push
statements.  It is highly unlikely these two OPRs were the sole  cause
of his nonselection when viewed in  light  of  his  entire  record  of
performance.  If the Board decides to grant relief, the 2 Jul  03  OPR
should have the feedback date removed and replaced with “Feedback date
was removed by direction of the BCMR” because both reports contain the
same feedback date and the date on the 2 Jul 02 report is outside  the
rating period.

The complete HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates he did provide evidence  to  substantiate  his
contentions.  He  already  established  a  precedent  when  the  Board
recognized HQ PACAF/SGX did not accurately assess his  performance  in
the earlier voided OPR.  The contested reports  were  drafted  by  two
senior officers who had no direct contact with him or direct knowledge
of his performance.  He cannot prove no feedback was conducted but  is
prepared to give sworn testimony to that  fact.   The  author  of  the
advisory  opinion  provides  no  specific  examples  to  support   her
conclusion the contested reports are consistent  with  his  record  of
performance.  One of the non-selection  counselors  indicated  in  his
assessment the contested OPRs sent clear signals to the board  not  to
promote him.  The medical career fields did not promote stratification
and job push statements until much later than  the  Line  of  the  Air
Force.  He argues his record shows consistent stratification  and  job
push statements that were customary and appropriate.  The  substandard
OPRs he received from HQ PACAF/SGX  were  the  direct  cause  for  not
receiving a “Definitely Promote (DP)” on his PRF during the management
level review (MLR).

A complete copy of  applicant’s  response,  with  attachments,  is  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 error or  injustice.   We  carefully  considered  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits  of  this  case;
however, he has not persuaded us the contested  OPRs  were  inaccurate
assessments of his performance  during  the  pertinent  periods.   The
applicant seems to assert, in part, that the voidance of the 28 Feb 02
OPR by the Board in Jan 04 justifies voiding the  presently  contested
performance reports. However,  we  are  not  convinced  a  fundamental
connection  or  “precedent”  exists.   The  28 Feb  02  OPR   appeared
questionable to the earlier Board based on the  contrast  between  the
supervisor’s comments on the AF Form 77 and rater’s  in  the  OPR,  as
well as the additional rater’s erroneous reference  to  the  applicant
being “relocated.”  The additional  rater  of  the  voided  28 Feb  02
report subsequently became the rater of the contested  28 Feb  03  and
2 Jul 03 OPRs with another individual as the  additional  rater.  Many
officers are not located directly under their rating chain, yet  these
evaluators  are  aware  of  their   subordinates’   achievements   and
capabilities.  The applicant’s submission has  not  persuaded  us  the
reporting officials of the contested OPRs  had  no  knowledge  of  his
performance   and   potential   or    unjustly    withheld    optional
stratification, command push and PME  comments.   We  also  noted  the
28 Feb 03 and the 2 Jul 03 OPRs were signed on 18 Mar  03  and  26 Aug
03, respectively, and  in  existence  when  the  applicant  filed  his
original AFBCMR appeal on 8 Sep 03 regarding the  subsequently  voided
28 Feb 02.  For whatever reason, he did not raise his  concerns  about
these performance reports until his second nonselection in 2004, after
which he filed an appeal with the ERAB on 29 Nov 05 and the AFBCMR  on
29 May 06.  Therefore, the  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  to  our
satisfaction his rating chain’s assessments in the contested OPRs were
unfair or inaccurate, his promotion opportunities were compromised, or
he  himself  exercised  reasonable  diligence  in  addressing  alleged
inaccuracies in his performance record.  In view of the above  and  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.    In addition to our determinations above, we agree with  the  Air
Force advisory that the “8 Nov 02” feedback date in Section VI of  the
OPR closing 2 Jul 03 should be removed as it is out  of  the  report’s
rating period.  However, this and the fact that the date was the  same
as the feedback date on the OPR closing 28 Feb 03 does not  inherently
substantiate no feedback occurred during  these  two  rating  periods.
Further, this correction is merely administrative in  nature  and  not
significant enough to warrant SSB consideration.

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   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that  the  Field  Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form  707A,  rendered  for  the  period
1 March  2003  through  2 July  2003,  was  amended  by  deleting  the
performance feedback date of “8 Nov 2002” in Section VI and  replacing
it with the comment “Feedback date was removed by the direction of the
BCMR.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 24 October 2006 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.  The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2006-01686 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 10 Aug 06.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Aug 06, w/atchs.




                                   JAY H. JORDAN
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2006-01686




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Field Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the period
1 March 2003 through 2 July 2003, was amended by deleting the
performance feedback date of “8 Nov 2002” in Section VI and replacing
it with the comment “Feedback date was removed by the direction of the
BCMR.”





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency