RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02531
                                  INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered  for  the  period  of  1 March
2002 through 4 September 2002 be voided and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral  OPR  in  question  was  generated  due  to  a  Military  Equal
Opportunity (MEO) investigation, of which there is no evidence  to  support.


In support of his request,  the  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement,
copies of  his  OPRs;  training  reports,  promotion  recommendation  forms,
flight evaluation certificates,  medal  citations,  award  inputs,  e-mails,
numerous letters of recommendations, biography, and Security  Forces  Report
of Investigation.

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 27 May 1987.  He was promoted to the  grade  of
major, effective and with a date of rank of 1 November 1998.

The following is a resume of his OPR  ratings  commencing  with  the  report
closing 11 May 1997:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      11 May 97                                MS
      18 Jan 99 (Major)                        MS
       9 Jun 99                                MS
      18 Feb 00                         Training Report (TR)
       9 Jun 00                                MS
       9 Jun 01                                MS
       4 Sep 02                                contested Report
       8 Apr 03                                MS
      15 Jan 04                                MS
      15 Jul 04                         Training Report (TR)
      15 Jan 05                                MS
      15 Jan 06                                MS

On 20 September 2002, the applicant was notified of a referral OPR  for  the
period 1 March 2002 through 4 September 2002.  The report was  referred  due
to a comment indicating the applicant was cited  for  inappropriate  conduct
with a female  civilian  contractor  for  which  he  received  a  Letter  of
Reprimand (LOR) – his failure to adhere to Air  Force  standards  ruined  an
otherwise productive reporting period.  The applicant  acknowledged  receipt
of the notification, and on 1 October 2002, submitted a response in his  own
behalf.  On 4 April 2005 and  14  December  2005,  the  applicant  submitted
appeals to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB)  requesting  his  OPR
closing  4  September  2002  be  voided.   The  ERAB  denied  both  of   the
applicant’s requests.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denying  the  applicant’s  request  to  void  his  OPR
closing 4 September 2002.  DPPPE states the applicant contends the  referral
OPR was generated based on an MEO investigation.  He further contends  there
is no evidence to support it occurred, referring to  the  MEO  investigation
or report.  The applicant provided a copy of the Security Forces  report  of
investigation  showing  an  investigation   was   conducted   following   an
allegation he sexual harassed a female  civilian  contractor.   He  provides
numerous  statements  apologizing  for  his   misconduct;   validating   the
information documented on the report is factual.   The  contested  OPR  does
not mention anything concerning an MEO complaint or  an  investigation.   It
mentions the LOR he received  for  having  an  unprofessional  relationship.
The reason the report was accomplished was due to a change of rater, not  an
investigation.  Had an investigation caused a  report  to  be  accomplished,
the commander would have had  to  direct  a  commander  directed  report  be
accomplished.  This was not the case as documented in section I, block 7  of
the contested OPR.

DPPPO states the applicant has failed to provide support substantiating  his
contested OPR is unjust.  A report will  not  be  removed  from  a  member’s
record for the sole purpose of convenience.  Air Force  policy  is  that  an
evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of
record.  To effectively challenge a performance report, it is  necessary  to
hear from all members of the rating chain – not only for support,  but  also
for clarification/explanation.  The applicant  has  failed  to  provide  any
information or support from the rating chain on  the  contested  performance
report.   In  the  absence  of   information   from   evaluators,   official
substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General or  Military
Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant understands that administratively and procedurally  he  has  a
rocky path to get his referral OPR voided.  His appeals  in  the  past  have
all been denied and he suspects the end result of this appeal  will  be  the
same; however, since the opportunity was presented to  him,  he  decided  to
try one last time.  Since  he  was  awarded  an  Meritorious  Service  Medal
during the same period of time; received numerous letters  of  support  from
the  members  of  his  rating  chain  for  the  same  period  of  time,  and
afterwards; shown  that  his  career  hasn’t  stopped;  shown  his  superior
performance has  not  wavered  because  of  this  incident;  and  that  this
incident was an isolated (but significant) action in his overall career,  he
would ask the Board to void the contested  OPR  so  that  he  may  still  be
considered eligible for promotion to lieutenant  colonel  in  spite  of  his
moment of stupidity.  He feels that the overall data supports  his  request.
He has been honest about what happened, right from the beginning.  He  could
have  submitted  his  appeal  without  the   Security   Forces   report   of
investigation, but he didn’t.  He has never  lied  or  quibbled  about  what
happened; nor  has  he  hired  a  high-priced  lawyer  to  find  a  loophole
affording him a safe way out.  His integrity, a reinforcement of  the  first
of the Air Force Core Values, is addressed in the many  letters  of  support
supplied.  He cannot change  the  past  and  the  advisory  opinion  clearly
addresses issues with his appeal.  He has supplied the ten  most  supporting
documents that he feels shows he can move forward and lead  in  the  future,
giving the Air Force more than 100 percent of his efforts.  He feels he  has
shown those capabilities time and again.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 a probable error or injustice.  The applicant does  not  appear
to  deny  the  central  findings  of  the   Security   Force’s   report   of
investigation.  The applicant asserts his contested OPR  was  generated  due
to an MEO complaint without  basis;  however,  we  find  the  OPR  does  not
mention anything concerning the MEO  complaint  or  an  investigation.   The
applicant also asserts he  was  not  given  performance  feedback  from  his
supervisor;  however,  we  note  although  Air  Force  policy  does  require
performance  feedback  for   personnel,   a   direct   correlation   between
information provided  during  feedback  and  the  assessment  on  evaluation
reports need not necessarily exist.  Lack  of  counseling  or  feedback,  by
itself, is not sufficient  to  challenge  the  accuracy  or  fairness  of  a
report.  In view of the above and in the absence  of  evidence  showing  the
contested report is an inaccurate depiction of his  performance  during  the
rating period in question, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale  as
our findings in this case.  Accordingly, the  applicant’s  request  to  void
his OPR is not favorably considered.

4.  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 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 14 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2006-02531
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Sep 06.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
      Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 12 Oct 06, w/atchs.




                                  LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                                   Panel Chair