RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00883
            INDEX CODE:  111.00
            COUNSEL:  None
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: Sep 23, 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF Form 707A, Officer Performance Report (OPR), for  the  period  ending
14 May 99, be permanently removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Security Forces Squadron Commander selection process was new and  broken
in 1998.

The rating in the report was unjust.  It was wrong in 1999 and time has  not
healed the wound.  Correcting this injustice is the right thing to do.

He was told an assignment to San Antonio, TX, would be  a  three-year  tour.
After being on station for about seven months, he  was  forced  to  put  his
name on a list that resulted in a short notice permanent change  of  station
(PCS) move.

He fought back and suffered the consequences.  He  eventually  gave  up  and
decided to retire quietly when eligible.  He now regrets that decision.

His situation resulted in an Air Force level change in Security Forces  that
required at least one year time on station prior to  becoming  eligible  for
PCS.  This change was a direct result of him fighting back.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy  of  the  contested
report, a bullet background paper, an acknowledgement letter, a  copy  of  a
letter to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, copies of  his  OPRs  closing
out in 1998 and 2000, respectively, a copy of his AF Form 724A, Field  Grade
Officer Performance Feedback Worksheet, dated 18 Nov 99, and an e-mail  from
AFSFC/CV.

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

_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired on 31 Oct 02  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,
after honorably serving for 20 years and 11 days.

A resume of his OPRs follows:

      CLOSEOUT DATE    OVERALL RATING

        12 Jul 93      Meets Standards
        12 Jul 94      Meets Standards
        21 Jun 95      Meets Standards
        14 May 96      Meets Standards
        14 May 97      Meets Standards
        14 May 98      Meets Standards
        14 May 99      Referral Report
        14 May 00      Meets Standards
        14 May 01      Meets Standards
        14 May 02      Meets Standards

On 22 Jun 99, the applicant’s vice commander notified him  of  his  referral
report.  Specifically, the ratings of “Does Not Meet Standards”  in  Section
V, Performance Factors of the AF Form 707A  and  comments  made  in  Section
VIII, Additional Raters Overall Assessment of the AF Form 707A,  caused  the
report to be a referral report.  The  comments  referenced  the  applicant’s
tendencies to place personal interest above  the  Air  Force  needs  in  the
assignment process.  Additionally,  the  applicant  was  given  10  days  to
comment on the report and informed he could appeal the report under AFI, 36-
2401, Correction of Airman and Officer Evaluation Reports.

On 24 Jun  99,  the  applicant  provided  rebuttal  comments  regarding  his
referral report.  He stated he believed his report  was  downgraded  due  to
him cancelling his assignment to Minot AFB,  ND.   He  further  stated  that
going to Minot AFB would have  had  disastrous  consequences  on  his  life.
When no one in his chain of command would help him out  of  the  assignment,
he contacted his future supervisor at Minot to  cancel  the  assignment  and
explained why the assignment  would  not  be  a  good  move  for  him.   The
supervisor agreed by promptly cancelling the applicant’s assignment.

The applicant contended he never implied in any  way  he  would  not  go  to
Minot.  He stated he would not hesitate to go, as evidenced by  him  signing
for and accepting  his  PCS  assignment  shortly  after  receiving  it.   He
further stated his only guilt was in asking a fair question  based  on  what
he  believed  to  be  an  unjust  situation.   Additionally,  he  asked  the
question, “How can asking someone to cancel an assignment result in  a  UIF,
LOR, and a referral OPR?”  He lastly asked why was  he  being  punished  for
standing up for what he believed.

The records do not indicate if his comments were received and acknowledged.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP  recommends  the  application  be  dismissed  on  the  basis  of
timeliness because he exceeded the three year time limit set  forth  in  AFI
36-2306, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.  The  applicant
waited eight years to file and took no action  on  the  claim  before  that.
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions  of  AFI  36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports.   He  has  inexcusably
delayed his appeal providing no explanation.  Clearly,  the  alleged  errors
upon which he  relies  have  been  discoverable  since  the  alleged  errors
occurred.

Additionally, he  has  failed  to  prove  an  injustice.   The  OPR  is  not
inaccurate or unjust simply because the applicant believes it  is.   He  has
provided nothing more than  unsubstantiated  conjecture  in  an  attempt  to
validate his claim.

The applicant received an Unfavorable Information File (UIF)  and  a  Letter
of Reprimand (LOR) during the reporting period.

The rater contends  he  tried  to  calm  senior  leadership  by  writing  an
inaccurate report, hoping to divert the possible reporting chain actions  of
a referral report.  If the rater believed the applicant deserved  a  glowing
report he should have “gone to bat” for him and made the  comments  he  felt
were appropriate.  AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, paragraph  3.3.2,
outline established procedures for evaluators to consider differences.   The
additional rater made the referral comments on the OPR.

To effectively challenge an OPR, it  is  necessary  to  hear  from  all  the
members  of  the  rating  chain,  not  only  the  support,  but   also   for
clarification/explanation.   The  applicant  has  failed  to   provide   any
information/support from the additional rater and reviewer of the  contested
OPR.   In  the  absence  of  information  from  the   evaluators,   official
substantiation of error or injustice from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or
Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided  in  this  case.
It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with  applicable
regulations.

An evaluation report is considered to  represent  the  rating  chain’s  best
judgment at the time it is rendered.  We  contend  that  once  a  report  is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants  correction
or  removal  from  an  individual’s   record.    The   applicant   has   not
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in  good  faith  by  all
evaluators  based  on  knowledge  available  at  the   time.    The   simple
willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a  report  is  not  a
valid basis for doing so.  You must prove the report is erroneous or  unjust
based on its content.

It is not reasonable to compare one report  covering  a  certain  period  of
time with another report covering a different period of time.  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.

Relating the ratings on the OPR to the markings on the performance  feedback
worksheet is an  inappropriate  comparison  and  is  inconsistent  with  the
officer evaluation system.  The purpose of the feedback session is  to  give
the ratee direction and to define performance expectations  for  the  rating
period in question.  It also provides the ratee the opportunity  to  improve
performance, if necessary, before the report is written.

The complete evaluation of AFPC/DPPPEP is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11  May
2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this  office
has not received a response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its 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-2007-00883
in Executive Session on 19 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/Atchs, dated 20 Mar 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 May 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 07.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair