RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01243
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.03
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 October 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Training Report (TR) for the period  16  January  2004  through  5 March
2004 be corrected by removing the statement “Capt  Villavaso  withdrew  from
the course because he was unwilling to  accept  his  post-graduate  W-prefix
assignment to Korea”  contained  in  the  OTHER  COMMENTS  section  of  that
report.

If the requested relief is granted, he be granted  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration by the CY06B (11 September 2006) (P0406B) Major  Central
Selection Board (CSB).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The statement in the OTHER COMMENTS section  of  the  TR  misrepresents  the
reason for his withdrawal from the training course.   The  true  reason  for
his withdrawal from the course is that he  did  not  possess  the  necessary
sensor background to be successful in this expert-level course.  He felt  it
was in his, and the Air Force’s, best interest to self eliminate  and  focus
on a mission area more suited to his strengths and talents  as  demonstrated
by his subsequent Officer Performance Reports (OPRs).

This was the pilot class of this course and he believes there was a  lot  of
pressure on the course manager, who wrote the report, to produce  graduates.
 Of the four students that were admitted to  the  sensor  course,  only  one
successfully finished.  During his time  as  a  student  in  the  course,  a
personality conflict existed between himself and the course manager, and  he
believes the “optional comment” was added to  the  TR  with  the  intent  of
reprisal for his withdrawing from the course.

He was not aware this TR was placed in his record because it  was  never  in
his base Military Personnel Flight (MPF) or unit records,  and  the  TR  was
overlapped by his OPR following the course.  Upon  review  of  his  “as  is”
record just prior to his  Major  CSB,  he  discovered  the  OPR  immediately
following school had been altered to exclude the dates of the  TR,  and  the
TR was now part of his record maintained at AFPC.  He  was  concerned  about
the TR being a part of his official record, but did  not  believe  it  would
endanger his opportunity for  promotion.   He  has  been  advised  that  the
contested statement  was  the  cause  for  his  non-selection,  despite  his
Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of  a  personal  statement,
dated 13 April 2007, the TR for the period 16 January 2004 – 5  March  2004,
a Course Instructor Student Mission Failure  memorandum,  dated  3  February
2004, a 116 ACW/XPP memorandum, dated 1 February 2007, his original OPR  for
the period 16 January 2004 through 15 January 2005, an altered OPR  for  the
period 6 March 2004 through 15 January 2005, and a Promotion  Recommendation
Form (PRF) prepared for the P0406B Major CSB.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Report  Appeals  Board  (ERAB)
which was denied on 11 April 2007.

He has one non-selection for promotion to the grade of major  by  the  CY06B
P0406B Major CSB.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO  recommend  denial  of   the   requested   relief.    They
understand applicant’s desire to  have  the  comment  removed  from  the  TR
because of the promotion advantage; however, the report  is  not  inaccurate
or unfair simply because he believes it is.  Air Force  policy  is  that  an
evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when  it  becomes  a  matter  of
record.

Applicant failed to complete the course, and AFI 36-2406 requires that a  TR
be completed upon completion or interruption of, or elimination from  formal
training or education when the scheduled course length  is  eight  weeks  or
more.  He failed to provide supporting/substantiated evidence  to  prove  he
did not withdraw due to the undesired  assignment,  and  without  validation
from the evaluator, they  can  only  conclude  the  report  is  accurate  as
written.

Applicant contends a personality conflict existed between  himself  and  his
rater.  In trainee-course  manager  relationships,  some  disagreements  are
likely to occur since a trainee must abide by a  commandant’s  policies  and
decisions.  Personnel who do  not  perform  at  expected  standards  or  who
require close instruction  may  believe  that  an  evaluator  is  personally
biased; however, the  conflict  generated  by  this  personal  attention  is
usually  professional  rather  than  personal.   He  has  not  provided  any
statements from his rating  chain  or  official  documentation  to  prove  a
personality conflict existed in this instance.  The letter  of  support  and
other extraneous documents he has provided are not  germane  to  the  TR  in
question, and the testimonial he  submits  failed  to  state  the  evaluator
could not be objective in his assessment of applicant’s performance.

Applicant also contends his evaluator rendered the contested TR in  reprisal
against him, but has failed to submit clear evidence to prove  reprisal  was
a factor.  In order to substantiate a reprisal  occurred,  he  must  file  a
complaint with the IG or MEO, and  include  a  copy  of  their  summary  and
Report of Investigation (ROI) with the appeal.  He did not mention he  filed
any sort of official complaint with the IG or MEO, nor did  he  provide  any
substantial evidence that reprisal occurred.

Statements from the evaluator during the contested period are  conspicuously
absent.  To effectively 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  failed  to
provide any such documentation.  Without benefit of these  statements,  they
can only conclude the TR is accurate as written.

Applicant contends the OPR closing 15 January 2005 was incorrectly  altered.
 The TR reflects the period 16 January 2004 through 5 March 2004.   IAW  AFI
36-2406, Table 3.1, Line 6, Note 4, “FROM Date:   Enter  the  day  following
the last report’s close-out date; or the day following  close-out  of  a  TR
from a school of 20 weeks or more.”  TRs with a course length  greater  than
20 weeks impact the OPR dates, as they are considered  stand  alone  reports
and the dates  must  flow.   The  prescribed  course  length  is  23  weeks,
regardless of the time actually required to complete the course.

The AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO evaluations are at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20  June
2007, for review and comment, within 30  days.   Applicant  responded  by  a
letter dated 17 July 2007.  He took issue with the advisory  statement  that
he did not provide supporting/substantiated evidence, and because  of  this,
the report was accurate.  He pointed out that he provided a letter from  the
class leader who had first hand knowledge of the situation and who  verifies
the true reason for his withdrawal.  He  also  attached  a  memo,  dated  23
February 2004, from an instructor of the course substantiating that  he  was
on the verge of being eliminated solely based on poor academic  performance,
and asks that these two memos be accepted as evidence.

Per the advisory suggestion, he contacted the rater who signed the TR.   The
rater wishes to leave the report as is and believes the contested  statement
was true at the time it was written.  The rater advised that  he  officially
present his side of the story  to  the  AFBCMR,  and  acknowledges  that  he
should have been allowed  the  opportunity  to  officially  respond  to  the
comment before it became a part of his record as the assignment  line  makes
this a referral report.  There is nothing to substantiate  that  he  refused
an assignment, and this is purely a subjective statement.

He also states he has no issue with the date correction to the  OPR  closing
15 January 2005, and believes AFPC misunderstood his  intent.   He  included
this documentation to explain why it took  so  long  to  take  this  action.
This date change did cause his base and unit records to be out of sync,  but
he understands it was completely legal  and  has  no  contention  with  this
issue.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation 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.   The
applicant failed  to  complete  the  course,  and  the  governing  directive
requires that a TR be completed  upon  completion  or  interruption  of,  or
elimination from formal training or  education  when  the  scheduled  course
length is eight weeks or more.  Although applicant  contends  a  personality
conflict existed between himself and his rater,  he  has  not  provided  any
statements from his rating  chain  or  official  documentation  to  prove  a
personality conflict existed in this instance and the  evaluator  could  not
be objective in his assessment of applicant’s performance.   Applicant  also
contends his evaluator rendered the contested TR in  reprisal  against  him,
but has failed to submit clear evidence to prove reprisal was a factor,  and
did  not  provide  any  substantial   evidence   that   reprisal   occurred.
Additionally, the rater of the contested report  has  stated  he  wishes  to
leave the report as is and believes the contested statement was true at  the
time it was written, and no evidence has been submitted that the  report  is
not accurate as written.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  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 issue(s) 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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-01243
in Executive Session on 2 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Apr 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP/DPPPO, dated 6 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jul 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair