RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02604
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 FEBRUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  rendered  for   the   period
20 October 2004 through 18 December 2005 be removed from  his  records
or all derogatory information be blacked out as well as the mark  down
in Block 3, Professional Qualities.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is unjust  because  it  does  not  accurately  reflect  his
conduct and service during the reporting period.

In support  of  his  application,  applicant  provided  a  memorandum,
Referral OPR and response, Letter of  Reprimand  (LOR)  and  response,
Letter of Admonition (LOA) and response, Memorandum for  Record  (MOR)
Retention Recommendation, AFPC OPR extension e-mail, and CDI excerpts.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant had prior enlisted service.  He graduated  from  Officer
Training School (OTS) and entered the Air Force Reserve  as  a  second
lieutenant on 20 December 2002.

The  applicant  received  a  referral  OPR  rendered  for  the  period
20 October 2004 through 18 December 2005.  The applicant did not  file
an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer  and
Enlisted Evaluation Reports (ERAB).

On 20 December 2005, the applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR) for making inappropriate comments to a civilian employee  and  a
fellow servicemember.

On 5 May 2005, the applicant received a Letter of Admonition (LOA) for
dereliction of duty.

The applicant’s performance report  profile  as  a  1Lt  reflects  the
following:

                 PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

                       1 Jun 06         Meets Standards
                      *18 Dec 05        Meets standards in all but
                             Professional Qualities

* Contested Report/Referral Report

On 3 February 2006, the applicant was non-selected for retention.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his OPR
for the period ending  18  December  2005.   However,  they  recommend
administratively correcting the report to read  “Furthermore,  he  was
counseled for making inappropriate sexual comments in the work  place”
or remove the comment from the report.  AFI 36-2406,  paragraph  3.7.5
prohibits comments on events that occurred after the close-out date of
a report.  The  close-out  date  of  the  applicant’s  report  was  18
December 2005.  The report is accurate as written.

The applicant stated his leadership notified  him  that  his  referral
report would be filed in his  OSR  before  the  Force  Shaping  Board,
without an opportunity to  defend  himself.   The  applicant  provided
rebuttal comments to his additional rater on 2 February 2006, two days
short of a full month after receiving his notification of  a  referral
OPR.  This time period  well  exceeded  the  recommended  10  days  to
provide a written response.

The applicant stated AFPC authorized an  extension  of  the  close-out
date of 61 days.  He states this is a  direct  violation  of  the  Air
Force Instruction.  He also stated his unit, chain of command and AFPC
allowed this improper action to take  place  supporting  his  argument
that this was a malicious action setting him up for failure under  the
Force Shaping  program.   The  Air  Force  Instruction  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.  DPPPEP further  states  this  includes  completion  of  an
investigation that began prior to the close-out date  or  confirmation
of  behavior  that  was  only  alleged  as  of  the  close-out   date.
Extensions will be  granted  to  cover  only  the  time  necessary  to
complete actions, not to exceed 59  days.   The  applicant’s  original
close-out date was 20 October 2005.  The  approved  59  day  extension
brought the close-out to 18 December 2005.  The close-out date was  in
compliance with evaluation policy.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written
when  it  becomes  a  matter  of  record.   They  further  state,   to
effectively challenge an EPR, it is imperative to hear  from  all  the
members of the rating  chain--not  only  for  support,  but  also  for
clarification and explanation.  The applicant  has  not  provided  any
information or documented support  from  his  rating  chain.   In  the
absence of information from evaluators, official substantiation of  an
error or an injustice from the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or  Military
Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but has not been provided  with  his
case.

The applicant may feel that evaluators have over stressed an  isolated
incident or a short period of substandard performance or conduct;  the
evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance,
and the frequency with which they occurred  in  assessing  performance
and  potential.   Only  the  evaluators  know  how  much  an  incident
influenced the report; therefore, the opinion of  individuals  outside
the rating chain are  not  relevant.   Retrospective  statements  from
evaluators prepared several months (or even years) after the  incident
or following a period of improved performance do  not  carry  as  much
weight as assessments made when the facts and circumstances were fresh
in their minds.   To  convince  the  Board,  evaluators  must  provide
specific information about the incident and why they  now  believe  it
was overly emphasized.

An evaluation report is considered to  represent  the  rating  chain’s
best judgment at the time it is rendered.  DPPPEP contends that once a
report is accepted for file, only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary
warrants correction or  removal  from  an  individual’s  record.   The
burden of proof is on the applicant.  He  has  not  substantiated  the
contested report was not rendered in  good  faith  by  all  evaluators
based on knowledge available at the time.

A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes  it
contributed to a non-selection for  promotion  or  may  impact  future
promotion or career opportunities.  The  Board  recognizes  that  non-
selection for retention is, for  many,  a  traumatic  event,  and  the
desire to  overturn  that  non-selection  is  powerful  motivation  to
appeal.  However, the Board is  careful  to  keep  the  retention  and
evaluation issues separate, and to  focus  on  the  evaluation  report
only.  The servicemember must prove the report is erroneous or  unjust
based on its content.

AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA concurs with the advisory opinion  submitted  by  AFPC/DPPPEP,
with one minor exception.  They recommend correction of  the  referral
OPR only to the limited extent of removing the phrase “received an LOR
for making” to “made”.  This would accurately  reflect  what  occurred
without referencing the LOR that was issued after the  closeout  date.
They further state the misconduct is relevant here and  not  the  fact
that it was memorialized later in an  LOR.   In  their  opinion,  this
correction would not represent a material change  in  the  applicant’s
record; i.e., the OPR in question is still  a  referral  report.   The
minor correction does not warrant a special selection board.

AFPC/JA evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  he  is
requesting to have the “inappropriate  sexual  comments  in  the  work
place” and the comments regarding the LOA removed from  his  OPR.   He
was led to believe that the AFBCMR was his only  opportunity  to  have
some or all of the negative statements removed from his OPR.

He believes altering his OPR has nothing to do with any other officers
or how fair that it would be to them and the removal of the  contested
comments  would  in  deed  make  the  report  accurate.   Nor,   would
correcting his OPR affect the Force Shaping Board results.

His objective is to have the negative comment removed  from  his  OPR.
The  statement  is  extremely  negative  and  will  continue  to  have
devastating effect on his future career options and the situation  did
not happened as it is stated in his OPR.  The situation was taken  way
out of context, the comment was not found offensive at the time stated
and was successfully taken dealt with months prior to the CDI and  the
LOR.

Lt Col M. told him the situation with the Fitness Program was not  his
(applicant’s) doing and Lt Col M. then pulled the LOA  from  his  file
and told the applicant  to  destroy  it.   He  had  the  acting  First
Sergeant to review his PIF to confirm that the LOA  had  been  removed
from his records.  The fitness situation was brought to the  IG  level
and they reviewed his PIF and found nothing and that  is  why  it  was
elevated to  the  MSG  level,  as  it  appeared  Lt  Col  M.  knew  of
wrongdoings with the Fitness Program and did nothing  to  correct  it.
Then Lt Col M. produced a copy of the LOA  and  slipped  it  into  the
applicant’s PIF after his  OPR  was  in  the  final  stages  to  cover
himself.

He and Lt Col M. were close and he believed Lt Col M. when he told him
the situation had been dealt with and was final.  Lt Col M. refuses to
go against a colonel or make a change to his  previous  decision  that
may make him look like he made a mistake (Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application not timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of  an  error  or  an  injustice  with  respect  to  the
applicant’s request to have the OPR for the period ending 18  December
2005 removed from his records or all derogatory information be blacked
out as well as the mark  down  in  Block  3,  Professional  Qualities.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.    Notwithstanding the above  finding,  we  note  that  sufficient
relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence  of
an error or an injustice that would  warrant  partial  relief.   With
respect to the applicant’s request regarding the derogatory  comments
on the OPR in question,  the  Board  concurs  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of AFPC/JA and adopt its rationale as  the  basis  for
our decision that the contested OPR  is  inaccurate  as  written  and
should be amended to delete the statement regarding the LOR since the
LOR was not issued until after  the  closeout  date  of  the  report.
Therefore, we recommend  his  records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
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   Officer
Performance Report for the period 20 October 2004 through  18 December
2005, Section  VI.  Rater  Overall  Assessment  be  amended  to  read:
Furthermore, he made inappropriate sexual comments in the work place.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-02604 in Executive Session on 26 April 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Chair
                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
                 Mr. James L. Sommer, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-
2006-02604 was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 06 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Enlisted Performance Reports.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 21 Feb 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 26 Feb 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Mar 07.
      Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Apr 07.




                       RICHARD A. PETERSON
                       Panel Chair






AFBCMR BC-2006-02604




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          , be corrected to show that the Officer
Performance Report for the period 20 October 2004 through 18 December
2005, Section VI. Rater Overall Assessment be amended to read:
Furthermore, he made inappropriate sexual comments in the work place.




                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                       Director
                       Air Force Review Boards Agency