RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02652
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.03
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX           COUNSEL: MR. GARY MYERS

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 March 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance  Report  (OPR)  for  the  period  28  November  2002
through 14 June 2003  be  replaced  or  be  removed  from  her  record.   In
addition,  she  be   given   Special   Selection   Board   (SSB)   promotion
consideration for each promotion board which considered  her  for  promotion
to colonel while her contested OPR was part of her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her senior rater was biased against her because she did  not  fit  into  the
category of women he found attractive.  Based on his inappropriate bias,  he
influenced the downgrading of her 2003 performance report.

In support of her application, the applicant provides a personal  statement;
a  statement  from  her  counsel;  application  for  correction/removal   of
evaluation reports; a copy of the contested report; a copy of a  draft  2003
OPR; statements from her rater and additional  rater;  a  statement  from  a
Professional Development officer;  excerpts  from  Professional  Development
Division  Presentations,  a  copy  of  the  Performance  Feedback,   Officer
Performance Report and Promotion Recommendation Form Guide for  JAG  Raters,
and letters of character reference.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the  applicant  is
currently serving on active  duty  with  a  Total  Active  Federal  Military
Service Date and Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned  Service  Date  of  13
January 1987.  Her current grade is lieutenant colonel with a date  of  rank
of 1 May 2000.  The following is a resume  of  the  applicant’s  performance
ratings:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

       2 Feb 97 (Major)                            MS
       2 Feb 98                                    MS
      24 Jul 98                                    MS
      24 Jul 99 (Lt Col)                           MS
      24 Jul 00                                    MS
      24 Jul 01                         Supplemental Evaluation Sheet
      27 Nov 01                                    MS
      27 Nov 02                                    MS
      14 Jun 03*                              MS
      14 Jun 04                                    MS
      14 Jun 05                                    MS

* Contested report

The applicant has three nonslections to the grade of colonel by  the  CY03B,
CY04A, and CY05A, Colonel Central Selection Boards,  which  convened  on  27
July 2003, 6 December 2004, and 12 September 2005 respectively.

An e-mail, dated 7 April  2006,  indicates  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) considered the applicant’s  request  to  remove  the  contested
OPR; however, was not convinced the OPR was unjust or wrong and  denied  the
applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP  recommends  denying  the  applicant’s  request   to   void   or
substitute the 14 June 2003 OPR; therefore, AFPC/DPPPO  finds  no  basis  to
grant SSB consideration.  DPPPR  states  the  applicant’s  additional  rater
provided a memo explaining that he was the author of his  comments  on  both
OPRs, and that the contested OPR  was  written  accurately  to  reflect  her
performance against her peers.  The additional rater goes on to  state  that
his decision to make changes to the applicant’s report was his own.   DPPPEP
states a report is not inaccurate because it was changed prior  to  becoming
a matter  of  record.   That  is  the  purpose  of  the  review  system  for
processing performance reports.  An OPR is considered a working  copy  until
filed in the Officer Selection Record;  therefore,  changes  are  authorized
until the report is filed.  The  applicant  provides  no  proof  her  senior
rater was biased towards her.  It is DPPPEP’s opinion that  the  applicant’s
contentions appear to be an  attempt  to  utilize  the  recently  publicized
investigation and resulting non-judicial punishment of her senior  rater  to
her advantage.  There is no evidence presented by the applicant linking  her
to the allegations against her senior rater  concerning  his  unprofessional
relationships with some of his  subordinates.   Nor  is  evidence  presented
which clearly demonstrates the senior rater’s personal standards  for  women
“who he hit  on”  played  a  definitive  role  in  the  preparation  of  the
applicant’s OPR.  Documentation provided by both the  rater  and  additional
rater indicate without a doubt the wording of the contested  OPR  was  their
personal assessment of the applicant’s performance and potential.  Based  on
both the evaluator’s statements, the report is accurate as written.

The DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel replies that they have demonstrated  an  unequivocal
nexus between the senior rater and the contested OPR.  It is not an  attempt
to use the miscreant’s conduct “to applicant’s advantage.”  Such  a  comment
is demeaning to intellect and fact.   The  chain  of  causation  is  clearly
established.  The OPR was  changed  because  of  the  miscreant’s  influence
based on his warped view of women.

The counsel’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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of
record, the Board is of the opinion that the contested report may not be  an
accurate reflection of the applicant’s  performance  during  the  period  in
question.  Circumstances in this  case  caused  the  Board  to  believe  the
contested OPR may have  been  influenced  by  the  Senior  Rater’s  personal
feelings rather than an objective evaluation of the applicant’s  performance
and potential.   The  Board  notes  that  the  applicant’s  original  report
closing 14 June 2003 was signed by  both  the  rater  and  additional  rater
reflecting a performance similar to her previous OPRs  and  also  subsequent
OPRs.  The Board also notes the statement provided by the  additional  rater
indicating the contested  OPR  was  returned  by  the  senior  rater  to  be
changed,  or,  possibly  suffer  a  nonconcurrence  by  the  senior   rater.
However, no reason is given to substantiate the downgrading of  the  report.
Considering the documented demeaning attitude her senior rater  had  towards
women, we find it feasible to believe the applicant’s senior rater may  have
inappropriately influenced the additional rater’s downgrading of the  report
in question.  In view of the foregoing, and  in  an  effort  to  offset  any
possibility of an injustice, the Board feels any doubt in this  case  should
be resolved in the applicant’s favor.  Therefore, it is the Board’s  opinion
that in order to provide  the  applicant  fair  and  equitable  relief,  her
records should be corrected as indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 November  2002  through  14
June 2003 be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.


It is  further  directed  that  her  corrected  record,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade  of  colonel  by  Special  Selection  Board  for  the
Calendar  Year  2003B,  Central  Colonel  Selection  Board,  and   for   any
subsequent board for which the OPR closing 14 June  2003  was  a  matter  of
record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 20 December 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
            Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
            Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-02652 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 06, with atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Sep 06.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 06.
      Exhibit D.  Counsel’s Rebuttal, dated 17 Oct 06.




                                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2006-02652


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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the
Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, rendered for the
period 28 November 2002 through 14 June 2003 be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from her records.


      It is further directed that her corrected record, be considered for
promotion to the grade of colonel by Special Selection Board for the
Calendar Year 2003B, Central Colonel Selection Board, and for any
subsequent board for which the OPR closing 14 June 2003 was a matter of
record.




                                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                                       Director
                                                       Air Force Review
                 Boards Agency