RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03454
            INDEX CODE:

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 MAY 2008


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  closing  10  Jun  03   be
permanently removed from his record.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never provided official feedback and notes the date  on  the
report was fabricated.  He was singled out  for  following  command
direction to recommend an Air Force base be forwarded  for  closure
under the Base  Realignment  and  Closure  (BRAC)  Commission.   He
states the OPR  is  completely  inconsistent  with  past/subsequent
performance and his rating chain refused to correct the report.

Applicant believes the OPR  to  be  erroneous  because  performance
feedback was never performed,  even  though  the  report  reflected
otherwise.  He says, “that feedback was denied and fabricated alone
speaks volumes as to the purposeful and calculated malfeasant  tone
and intent of the OPR, and its maneuvering through  the  system  to
ensure it could not be reviewed by objective  parties.”   Applicant
indicates he was on leave on the date feedback was supposed to have
been performed.

His  report  lacked  a  Professional   Military   Education   (PME)
recommendation, which he believes was the single  most  significant
factor for filing his appeal 18 months  after  discovery.   He  was
told  his  additional  rater,  (a  Navy  Captain)  believed  a  PME
recommendation was an endorsement for early promotion to  0-6.   He
believes his additional rater, one  who’s  well-versed  in  writing
USAF OPRs, should/would have known excluding the PME recommendation
was a clear negative signal to any promotion board, as it  is  with
Navy boards.  This lack of a PME recommendation was retribution for
his work on the OAFB referral to the BRAC.

Applicant submits this request  only  after  having  exhausted  all
other  avenues  to  seek  remedy  through  less  drastic  measures,
including having sought, and  having  been  denied,  administrative
correction on his own, through  his  commanders,  and  through  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  Applicant has the  support
of previous raters no longer in the rating chain.

In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
letters of support from a former director,  commander  and  current
rater; Email correspondence from ERAB;  military  leave  documents,
and other supporting documentation (including email  correspondence
from his additional rater).

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

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the rank of  lieutenant  colonel,
with a date of rank of 1 Dec 03, and a Duty Title  of  Director  of
Mission.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last seven reporting periods is  as
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL EVALUATION

      31 May 01  Meets Standards (MS)
      10 Aug 01  Training Report (TR)
      10 Jun 02  TR
*     10 Jun 03  MS
      10 Jun 04  MS
      10 Jun 05  MS
      30 Mar 06  MS

* Contested Report closing 10 Jun 03.

Applicant filed an appeal  through  the  ERAB;  however,  the  ERAB
denied his request on 21 Apr 06.  ERAB  substantiated  no  feedback
was accomplished on 12 Mar 03.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed this application and recommended denial.

The applicant contends he did not receive formal feedback  sessions
during the reporting period.  AFI 36-2403, paragraph  2.8.,  states
the ratee should “notify the rater and, if necessary,  the  rater’s
rater when a required or requested feedback session does  not  take
place.”  Applicant does not state whether he requested  a  feedback
session from his rater, nor does he state he notified the rater  or
the rater’s rater when the required feedback session did  not  take
place.  However,  a  rater’s  failure  to  conduct  a  required  or
requested feedback session does not by itself  invalidate  an  OPR.
The performance  feedback  date  is  considered  an  administrative
error/correction.  Incorrect feedback date does not make the entire
report inaccurate or invalid as written.  When reports are accepted
for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants  correction
or removal from an individual’s record.  Applicant has  not  proven
the data contained in  the  report  was  inaccurate  or  erroneous.
Despite his claims that this is a negative  report,  there  are  no
negative statements in the  commentary,  only  positive  statement.
The report is very positive. The crux of the matter is the lack  of
an optional PME statement.  This alone does  not  make  the  report
false or negative.

Applicant contends the contested OPR is inconsistent with  previous
performance.  It is not reasonable to compare one report covering a
certain period of time with another  report  covering  a  different
period of time.   This  does  not  allow  changes  in  the  ratee’s
performance and  does  not  follow  the  intent  of  the  governing
instruction.  The OPR was  designed  to  provide  a  rating  for  a
specific period of time based on the performance noted during  that
period, not based on previous performance.

Air Force policy is  that  an  evaluation  report  is  accurate  as
written when it becomes a matter of record.   Statements  from  the
evaluators during the contested period  are  conspicuously  absent.
In order to successfully challenge the validity  of  an  evaluation
report, it is important to hear from the evaluators—not necessarily
for support,  but  at  least  for  clarification/explanation.   The
applicant has not provided any such  documentation.   In  addition,
applicant claims the OPR is  the  result  of  retribution  for  his
recommendation of OAFB to be closed via the BRAC process.  However,
the applicant has  not  proven  retribution.   In  the  absence  of
information from evaluators, official substantiation  of  error  or
injustice  from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or  Military  Equal
Opportunity (MEO) is appropriate, but not provided  in  this  case.
It appears the report was accomplished in  direct  accordance  with
applicable instructions.

HQ AFPC/DPPPEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 22 Dec 06 for review and comment within 30  days.   As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was not timely filed; however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient  relevant   evidence   has   been   presented   to
demonstrate the existence of error  or  injustice.   The  applicant
contends he was not provided official feedback and that he believes
the  lack  of  a  PME  recommendation  was  retribution   for   his
recommendation to the BRAC process.  The Board noted  the  comments
provided by the applicant and the letters of reference submitted in
his behalf; however, the Chief, Evaluations  Programs  Branch,  has
conducted a thorough review of  the  evidence  of  record  and  has
adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant  and  we
are in agreement with her opinion and  recommendation.   Therefore,
we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of  having  suffered
either an  error  or  injustice.   In  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

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 AFBCMR Docket  Number
BC-2006-03454 in Executive Session on  29  March  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
      Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 30 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 12 Dec 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Dec 06.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair