RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03956
		INDEX CODE:  110.03, 111.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the 
period of 11 Jun 05 through 10 Jun 06 and 11 Jun 06 though 15 
Dec 06 be reaccomplished.

2.  His Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) for the L9907B/1C881 
Force Shaping (FS) Board be reaccomplished so that he can be 
retained.

3.  He be reinstated as an officer of the United States Air 
Force.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPRs used to prepare the RRF contained inaccurate 
information.  Guidance was not adhered to in determining force 
shaping ranking for both core AFSC and his overall ranking, 
resulting in a biased, discriminatory assessment.

His ranking was based upon marital status, and inaccuracies and 
inconsistencies in his OPRs and RRF.

His commander failed to include crucial training information in 
his RRF.

His OPRs and group commander endorsements do not appear to be 
consistent with the force shaping evaluation submitted to the 
wing commander for his final review and ranking.

He did not write a letter to the Board because one of his 
evaluators said that he was going to fix “the situation” before 
the OPR became an issue.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies of 
documents submitted with his DD Form 948, Application for 
Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports appeal to include a 
Memorandum to the Force Shaping Board, AF IMT 102, Inspector 
General, Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint 
Registration, contested OPR dated 15 Dec 06, a substitute OPR, 
contested OPR dated 10 Jun 06, contested AF IMT 3538, Retention 
Recommendation, dated 8 Jan 07, a revised AF IMT 3538, a copy of 
the Aircraft Maintenance Office, 21AX, Career Field Education 
and Training Plan, an AF Form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job 
Training Action, dated 20 Sep 07, IG Response, two Training 
Reports, and a letter from Congressman XXXXXXXXX.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 May 04, applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the 
Reserve of the Air Force.  He served on active duty from 11 Jun 
04 until 29 Sep 07, in AFSC 21A3, Aircraft Maintenance.  

He was considered by the FY07 FS Board for line officers in 
overage career fields (CORE AFSCs) in the 2004 accession year 
group and Navigator (12R), Air Battle Manager (13B), Space and 
Missile (13S), and Developmental Engineer (62E) fields in the 
2003 year group.  The FY07 FSB also considered Judge Advocates 
whose dates of rank to captain were in 2003.  

The RRF was accomplished on 8 Jan 07.  On 18 Jan 07, he 
requested his RRF be changed; however, his evaluators would not 
make the changes.  He did not write a letter to the FY07 FS 
Board.  On   12 Mar 07, he met the FY07 Officer FS Board.  The 
results of the FY07 FS board were released on 2 May 07, and the 
applicant was not selected for retention.  On 29 Sep 07, he was 
involuntarily released from the Air Force by the FY07 Force 
Shaping Board.  

He completed an AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal 
of Evaluation Reports on 26 Nov 07, but he never submitted it to 
the ERAB.

He is currently serving as a traditional guardsman with the 
Georgia Air National Guard (GA ANG). 

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
reaccomplish his 10 Jun 06 OPR, his 15 Dec 06 OPR, and his RRF 
for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping Board.  DPSIDEP stated the 
applicant contends he made an attempt, although post-board, to 
get the contested evaluations corrected but could not get the 
support of his evaluators, other than changing the word “shows” 
to “showed.”  However, DPSIDEP does not have statements from his 
evaluators stating they agree with this.  

The evaluations were prepared IAW governing directives, and no 
errors or injustices were found in the processing of these 
reports.  However, with the concurrence of the evaluators, they 
would support changing the word “shows” to “showed” on his 15 
Dec 06 OPR.

Although the applicant included two AF Forms 948, Application 
for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, he never submitted 
them to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Reports.  The evidence shows he attempted to get 
support from his evaluators and when they refused, he did not 
submit them.  Now that he has separated he is no longer eligible 
to apply through the ERAB.

The FS guidance provided not only the opportunity to elect 
voluntary separation, but also the opportunity to appeal any 
evaluations and/or submit a letter to the Board prior to the    
12 Mar 07 FS board.  Eligible FS board officers were required to 
have their RRF in hand NLT 15 Jan 07.  The applicant had his 
before 11 Jan 07, because he stated he tried to meet with the 
group commander about the inconsistencies, and that the group 
commander explained to him why he was ranked last.  He was well 
aware of his standing as early as Jan 07, and with the exception 
of discussing the alleged inconsistencies with his evaluators, 
he took no action to appeal any of his OPRs or the RRF at that 
time.

The applicant states, referring to his IG complaint, that one of 
the evaluators said he was going to fix the situation before the 
OPR became an issue, therefore he did not write a letter to the 
board.  However, after reviewing the referenced attachment, it 
does not state exactly what was going to be fixed, and it 
mentions a meeting that did not take place.  This again was post 
FS board, the deadline for letters to the board was NLT 11 Mar 
07.

The applicant contends that Air Force Guidance was not adhered 
to in determining Force Shaping ranking for both core AFSC and 
overall ranking resulting in a biased and discriminatory 
assessment based upon martial status.

Reference the 15 Dec 06 OPR.  The applicant requests that his    
15 Dec 06 OPR be reaccomplished; requesting the last line in 
Section VII be changed:

FROM:  Lt E.--- is a loyal officer and continually shows 
progression towards basic certification-challenge him.

TO:  Lt E.--- is a loyal officer and has exceeded basic 
certification well ahead of his peers-challenge him!

He contends the commander failed to document crucial training 
before the 12 Mar 07 FS board, that he was upgraded for basic 
certification on 13 Dec 06.  However, his Dec 06 OPR states he 
“continually shows progression toward basic certification.”  
Unfortunately, however, the 13 Dec 06 entry does not state the 
applicant was upgraded. It states, (paraphrased), that he was 
instructed to finish the career field education and training 
(CFETP) requirements so he can be upgraded in Dec 06; that he 
was to provide the transcribed CFETP to the trainer that week; 
and should have all the requirements for upgrading completed 
that week.  There are no entries to indicate the applicant in 
fact completed the requirements that week, and there is no entry 
indicating he was in fact upgraded that week.  Completing the 
requirements and being upgraded are two different things.  In 
Jun 07, the group commander reviewed the applicant’s CFETP and 
found that the applicant was actually never upgraded; although 
the applicant may have completed all the requirements, it was 
the squadron commander’s responsibility to make the final 
determination to upgrade him or not.

The AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, 
accomplished on 20 Sep 07, with an effective date of 13 Dec 06, 
was not signed by any of the commanders involved and the 
applicant provided no justification from the commanders as to 
why the AF Form 2096 was prepared so late.  He also provided a 
Jan 07 slide that showed he had completed all the training 
requirements before all of his peers; just because he finished 
first, does not mean he finished best.  Additionally, it does 
not show that he was actually upgraded.  However, giving the 
applicant the benefit of the doubt, and if directed by the 
AFBCMR, they would agree to changing the word “shows” to 
“showed,” on the Dec 06 OPR; however, whether the change is made 
or not, it does not make the report inaccurate or unjust based 
on the information known by the additional rater at the time the 
report was signed.

Reference the 10 Jun OPR.  The applicant requests that his 10 
Jun 06 OPR be reaccomplished; requesting the last line in 
Section VII be changed:

FROM:  Lt E.--- is an up-and-coming MX officer—showing good 
progress toward basic certification/fully qualified

TO: Outstanding progress has been made towards basic 
certification requirements; DAU requirements are next

He contests the statement, “showing good progress toward basic 
certificate/fully qualified” made by the group commander/ 
additional rater on his Jun 06 OPR.  He states that it is 
inconsistent with the 11 Mar 06 entry made in his CFETP by his 
direct supervisor which stated:  “Outstanding progress has been 
made towards 3-level requirements.  Working on education square 
was discussed, specifically DAU course.”  Unfortunately, the 
statement annotated in his CFETP was only one statement, made on 
11 Mar 06, by an individual who was not in the applicant’s 
rating chain.  The report is not erroneous or unjust because the 
wording conflicts with the CFETP.  The CFETP entry was based on 
the trainer’s perception of the applicant at that particular 
moment, and based on the applicant’s training alone; whereas the 
OPR was the additional rater’s perception based on many factors.

Reference the RRF for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping Board.  The 
applicant requests that his RRF for this board be 
reaccomplished; requesting that the last line in Section V be 
changed:

FROM:  “Held flight commander job in 3 largest MXS flights; 
performance lags that of his peers but shows slow and steady 
improvement.”

TO:  “Commanded four maintenance sqdn flts/one AMXS flight; 
leadership, initiative and performance far exceeds that of his 
peers!”

He contends the RRF was prepared based on inaccurate 
information; crucial training was not documented, that his AFSC 
should have been reflected as 21A1 or 21A3 versus 21A; and that 
his Aircraft Maintenance Officer Course Training Report (TR) 
rendered for the period 14 Jun 04 through   6 Oct 04 was the 
focal point for his RRF rating.  All his OPRs indicate that he 
meets standards and that none of the OPRs state that any type of 
his performance is lagging.

MPFM 06-82, Attachment 2, paragraph 16a, states “The DAFSC/CORE 
ID block should have the 3-digit CORE AFSC as reflected on the 
DQHB.”  The AFSC on the RRF was in compliance with the governing 
directives.  Additionally, the complete AFSC was available to 
the board via the Officer Selection Brief (OSB), which the 
applicant was required to review and make any necessary 
corrections to prior to the board.

The applicant states he made an attempt, although post-board, to 
get the contested evaluations corrected but could not get the 
support of his evaluators, other than changing the word “shows” 
to “showed.”  However, they do not have statements from the 
evaluators stating they would agree to that; the statement is 
made by the applicant.  Since he could not get their support, 
this seems to infer the evaluations are exactly how the 
evaluators intended.  The evaluators have to look at the 
applicant’s entire career, then write and make the ranking based 
on the entire record during the officer’s entire career.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

HQ AFPC/DPSOSS recommends denial of applicant’s request to 
reaccomplish the RRF.  DPSOSS found no errors or injustices in 
the processing of the applicant’s RRF.  The RRF was completed in 
accordance with the governing directives.  

The complete DPSOSS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant non-concurs with both of the Air Force 
evaluations.  
He states, “Do you really think his prior squadron commander is 
going to write a statement saying that he was the logical choice 
for the FS Board because of his marital status, and admit that 
he did not follow established guidance and Air Force policy?”  
His Wing commander never did follow up to get to the bottom of 
this and fix the problem.  Additionally, His IG complaint was 
not handled properly.

On 13 Dec 06, he met all the requirements for his upgrade.  He 
did finish before his peers and some of his supervisors, and he 
is the best.  His squadron commander stated that the first AF 
IMT 2096 was lost.  He watched him sign the second AF IMT 2096, 
and then it was lost, and the third AF IMT 2096 was signed and 
input into the computer system.  He did not know the Dec 06 OPR 
was being created; it was out of cycle in preparation for the FS 
board.   

Along with his rebuttal the applicant provided a statement from 
his father.  His father states that to infer his son’s 
performance was mediocre was totally uncalled for and certainly 
not even close to being true.  His son gave the Air Force 100% 
and yes, was a little stubborn at times, took on professional 
risks and called the shots the way he saw them.  In summary, he 
guesses all lieutenants are expected to be experts in the 
personnel career field.  Lieutenants are just starting to master 
their respective career paths and they are still very vulnerable 
to their surroundings.  They need mentoring and experienced 
guidance from their supervisors.  They certainly do not need to 
be sacrificial lambs for an ill advised Air Force personnel 
policy, called Force Shaping.  Do what is right and reinstate 
his son.

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 error or injustice.  We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 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 Docket Number    
BC-2007-03956 in Executive Session on 9 Jul 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2007-03956 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 27 Feb 08.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOSS, dated 18 Apr 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 May 08, w/atchs.




								XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
								Panel Chair