RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02441
                                             INDEX CODE:  111.05
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance  Report  (OPR)  for  the  period  1  September  1998
through 23 July 1999 be removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor was personally biased against him, and the  action  taken  by
the supervisor was severe for the circumstances and  obvious  abnormalities.


When comparing this OPR to the rest of his OPRs, he believes  it  is  indeed
an injustice and does not reflect his capabilities.

He submitted an appeals package once before, but the appeal was attached  to
the OPR in question rather than correct [sic] the injustice.   It  was  only
recently that he was told by his Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF)  that  a
mistake was made, and he should appeal to the Board to have the OPR  removed
from his record for bias.

In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a letter from  the  86th
WG/CV at the time, outlining the events detailed in the OPR, a  letter  from
the Area Defense Counsel questioning the reason and rationale  of  the  OPR,
and  a  letter  from  a  retired  major  providing  background   information
concerning the unit’s environment.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The contested report is a Change of Reporting Official  (CRO)  OPR  for  the
period 1 September 1998 through 23 July  1999,  that  was  referred  to  the
applicant on 28 July 1999.   Although  the  applicant  was  rated  as  Meets
Standards in all Performance Factors in Section V of the report, the  report
contains comments by the rater in  Section  VI,  Rater  Overall  Assessment,
which make the OPR  a  referral  report.   Both  the  additional  rater  and
reviewer concurred with the report as written.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1995 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING                    EVALUATION

            31 Aug 95                        Meets Standards
            31 Aug 96                        Meets Standards
            31 Aug 97                        Meets Standards
            31 Aug 98                        Meets Standards
      *     23 Jul 99                   Meets Standards (Referral)
            24 Jul 00                        Meets Standards
            24 Jul 01                        Meets Standards
           24 Jul 02                         Meets Standards
           13 May 03                         Meets Standards
           13 May 04                         Meets Standards
           13 May 05                         Meets Standards
           13 May 06                         Meets Standards
           13 May 07                         Meets Standards



*  Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPS1DEP recommends denial unless the  applicant  can  provide  concrete
evidence that the rater was, in fact, biased against him, in which  case  he
can resubmit.

Although the application was submitted in a timely  manner,  the  appeal  is
eight years after the contested report.   The  applicant  did  not  file  an
appeal with the Evaluation  Reports  Appeals  Board  (ERAB);  however,  this
appeal was forwarded to the ERAB for  review  and  they  recommended  denial
because he did not prove the report was inaccurate.

With the exception of one additional statement,  this  application  contains
the same documentation that was attached to the  original  OPR  appeal,  and
this is the same documentation that both the additional rater  and  reviewer
for the contested report had  the  opportunity  to  review  before  the  OPR
became a matter of record.  The one additional  statement  he  provided  was
written by his then flight commander, however, the statement does little  to
substantiate  that  there  was  a  bias  between  the  applicant   and   his
supervisor.

IAW  AFI  36-2406,  paragraph  3.2,  one  of  the  responsibilities  of  the
additional  rater  and  reviewer  is  to  ensure  the  report  is  accurate,
unbiased, and not inflated, and  if  the  rater  was  actually  biased,  the
additional rater and/or the  reviewer  would  have  questioned  the  report.
Additionally, the OPR is considered to represent  the  rating  chain’s  best
judgment at the time it was rendered.  Once a report is accepted  for  file,
only strong evidence to the contrary warrants removal  of  the  report  from
the applicant’s record.  The burden of proof is on him, and  one  additional
statement did not substantiate his claim.

The AFPC/DPS1DEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  12
October 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, as  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice to warrant  voiding  the  contested
OPR and removing it  from  his  records.   In  this  respect,  we  note  the
applicant was rated by his rater  as  Meets  Standards  in  all  Performance
Factors in Section V of the contested report; however, the report  became  a
referral report based on comments made by his rater  in  Section  VI,  Rater
Overall Assessment, pertaining  to  two  isolated  incidents  of  relatively
minor significance.  After reviewing the applicant’s  complete  records  and
the supporting evidence that has been  submitted,  the  Board  is  persuaded
that sufficient doubt has been raised as to the accuracy  of  the  contested
report, and we do not believe the applicant should be  penalized  for  these
two relatively insignificant, isolated incidents.  Therefore,  we  recommend
his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to the APPLICANT be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Company  Grade  Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1  September  1998
through 23 July 1999, be declared void and removed from his records

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2007-02441
in Executive Session on 4 December 2007, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Ms Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
                       Mr Richard K. Hartley, Member
                       Mr Reginald P. Howard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPS1DEP, dated 22 Aug 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 07.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair




AFBCMR 2007-02441




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Company Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 1
September 1998 through 23 July 1999, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.







  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency