RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01311,
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

                       COUNSEL:  MR. FRANK J. SPINNER

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 NOVEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  21 June
2002 through 20 June 2003 be removed from his records and  he  receive
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 2004
(CY04) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the last  year  of  his  assignment  at  Tinker  AFB,  OK,  his
rater/wing commander, was  unjustly  influenced  by  the  deputy  wing
commander and wrote an overall assessment that was weak, which  showed
a downward trend in duty performance and of  a  quality  that  clearly
undermined his ability to be promoted.

In support of his application, the applicant provided counsel’s brief,
a memorandum from AFPC/DPPPE, his OPR closing 20 June  2003,  AF  Form
3849, a memorandum from  72  ABW/CC,  his  Meritorious  Service  Medal
citation, and letters of support from former servicemembers.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.

The applicant filed  an  appeal  under  the  provision  of  Air  Force
Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation
Reports and his appeal was denied.

The applicant has two nonselections to the grade  of  colonel  by  the
CY04C and CY06C colonel CSBs.

The applicant’s performance report profile  as  a  lieutenant  colonel
reflects the following:

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                     20 Jun 01          MEETS STANDARDS
                     20 JUN 02          MEETS STANDARDS
                    *20 JUN 03          MEETS STANDARDS
                     20 JUN 04          MEETS STANDARDS
                     20 JUN 05          MEETS STANDARDS
                     20 JUN 06          MEETS STANDARDS

*Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the requested relief be denied.  DPPPEP  states
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 removal of the report  from  the  individual’s  record.   The
burden of proof is on the applicant.

The applicant provided evidence  that  covered  periods  or  incidents
outside the reporting period and is  not  relevant  to  the  contested
report.  The evidence submitted does allude to possible issues between
the applicant and the Chief of  Chaplain  Service,  who  was  not  the
evaluator on the contested report.

The applicant did provide a statement from a  visiting  Chaplin  whose
observations did cover  the  period  of  the  contested  report.   The
chaplain stated he noticed, investigated, and  reported  to  the  wing
commander (applicant’s rater), that there seemed to  be  a  disconnect
between the wing vice commander and the applicant.

DPPPEP further states the applicant has  not  substantiated  that  his
rater,  or  the  additional  rater/reviewer  for  that  matter,   were
influenced by others outside  the  rating  chain,  and  the  contested
report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators.  By the  time
the contested  report  was  written,  the  rater  had  supervised  the
applicant long enough, and knew his  reputation  well  enough  not  to
allow outside influences impair  his  judgment,  preventing  him  from
writing a fair and impartial report.

Furthermore, a performance report is not erroneous or  unfair  because
the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection
for promotion or may impact future promotion or career  opportunities.
The board recognizes that nonselection for promotion is, for  many,  a
traumatic event, and the  desire  to  overturn  that  nonselection  is
powerful motivation to appeal.  The board, however, is careful to keep
the promotion and evaluation issues separated, and  to  focus  on  the
evaluation report only.  To void a report simply on the basis that  it
did not include optional statements such as  PME,  job/command  “push”
recommendations, or stratification, normally, will not form the  basis
for a successful appeal; as these statements  are  not  mandatory  for
inclusion, their omission does not make the  report  inaccurate.   The
applicant must prove that the report was erroneous or unjust based  on
its content.

AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 July 2007,  the  applicant’s  counsel  reviewed  the  Air  Force
evaluation and provided an  additional  supporting  statement  from  a
former Air Force Chaplain (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our  determination  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden  of  proving  that  he  has
suffered either an error or an injustice.  Although, it appears  there
may have been  some  disconnect  between  the  applicant  and  certain
individuals not in his rating chain, we are  not  by  the  applicant's
assertions that his rating chain was improperly influenced and  unable
to render an honest, fair and accurate assessment of  his  performance
and  demonstrated   potential   during   the   period   in   question.
Accordingly, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01311 in  Executive  Session  on  5  September  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
                       Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Mar 07 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Officer Selection Brief
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 6 Jun 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel’s Response, dated 20 Jul 07.




                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair