RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00890
                                  INDEX CODE:  111.02
  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                 COUNSEL:  NONE
                                  HEARING DESIRED:  NO


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 SEPTEMBER 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period  28 April  2003
through 1 February 2004 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral OPR in question is inaccurate, contains  false  statements  and
is unjust.  His rater’s decision to give him a referral OPR was  vindictive,
unjustified and unnecessary.  The rater’s bias affected his objectivity  and
a fair and accurate performance report.  He believes his OPR was written  by
the deputy who had a grudge against him.   Many  months  after  he  departed
Germany in 2004, information volunteered by a fellow  officer  informed  him
that the deputy “had it out for me”  and  that  he  had  done  his  best  to
discredit him as the division chief.  The single most unjustified aspect  of
his referral OPR is that he  was  personally  placed  in  a  division  chief
position and removed by the rater  after  only  14  work  days  for  alleged
reasons of incompetence.  There is nothing that he did or did not do in  his
performance of his duties as the division chief that justifies  being  given
a referral OPR.  There is nothing written in his OPR by his rater  that  can
substantiate or justify the issuance of a referral OPR.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement;
copies of his OPRs; copy of  his  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board  (ERAB)
application  and  the  ERAB  decision  letter  dated   17 May   2005.    The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant  has  a
Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  3  October  1979  and  a  Total
Active Federal Commissioned  Service  Date  of  1 September  1980.   He  was
promoted to the grade of colonel, effective and with a date  of  rank  of  1
January 2003.  The applicant’s OPR profile is as follows:

      PERIOD ENDING               OVERALL EVALUATION

      27 APR 99                   MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
      27 APR 00                           MS
      27 APR 01                           MS
      27 APR 02                           MS
      27 APR 03                           MS
      01 FEB 04                           MS (CONTESTED REPORT)
      01 FEB 05                           MS
      01 FEB 06                           MS

On 17 May 2005, a similar appeal by the applicant was considered and  denied
by the ERAB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states that  although  the  applicant
may feel his rater 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  opinions  of
individuals outside the rating chain are not relevant.  DPPPEP  advises  the
applicant provides no evidence to support his allegations  that  the  deputy
who had a grudge against him  wrote  his  OPR,  that  he  was  placed  in  a
division chief position by the rater and removed only after 14 workdays  for
alleged  incompetence  and  that  the  rater  overreacted  to  an   isolated
incident.  The DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to  the  applicant  on  15  June
2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,  this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   After  reviewing  all  of  the  evidence
provided, we are not persuaded the contested OPR is inaccurate or  that  its
contents violate  governing  directives.   We  have  noted  the  applicant’s
contentions  concerning  the  comments  in  the  contested  report  and  his
allegations that  the  OPR  was  intentionally  written  to  discredit  him.
However, while the applicant may believe this is the case, there is  nothing
in the evidence provided which would lead us to  believe  that  the  OPR  in
question is the  result  of  unlawful  command  influence  or  that  it  was
prepared with any motivation on the part of the  evaluators  other  than  to
report their assessments of the applicant’s performance.  We note  that,  in
the rating process, it is the  responsibility  of  evaluators  to  assess  a
ratee’s performance, honestly, and to the  best  of  their  ability.   Other
than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that  the
evaluators  abused  their  discretionary  authority,  that  the  report   is
technically  flawed,  or  that  the  evaluators  comments   are   based   on
inappropriate  considerations.   In  the  absence  of  such  evidence,   the
applicant’s request that the contested report be removed  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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-00890
in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
                 Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
00890 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 23 May 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Mar 07, w/atchs.




                                  B J WHITE-OLSON
                                             Panel Chair