RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03666
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF IMT 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered  for
the period of 8 July 2004 through 7 July 2005 and prepared for the  Calendar
Year 2006C (CY06C) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection  Board  be  replaced
with a corrected OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR rendered during the period in question is  technically  accurate  in
most respects; however, it does not reflect an accurate  assessment  of  his
performance and overall contributions  to  Headquarters  Air  Force  Special
Operations Command (AFSOC) due to a personality conflict.  In addition,  the
current OPR on file does not contain his correct duty  Air  Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) of 11H4E.

In support of his application, applicant provides a  personal  statement,  a
copy of his original OPR and corrected OPR,  letters  of  support  from  his
additional rater, reviewer and co-workers.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant
colonel by the Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C).  He was also considered  by  the
CY07B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.  The results of the  CY07B
LtCol CSB have not yet been released.

The applicant submitted an  appeal  regarding  the  OPR  to  the  Evaluation
Report Appeals Board (ERAB). The ERAB denied  the  application  because  the
board was not convinced the report was inaccurate or  unjust  based  on  the
evidence provided.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states the appeal process is  to  correct
errors and injustices and none were found in the applicant's case.

Applicant complains about a  personality  conflict,  however,  the  evidence
provided did not support his allegation. A professional disagreement on  the
need for combat search and rescue (CSAR) to be in AFSOC  may  have  existed,
but  no  personality  conflict  existed.  He  provided   several   character
references  and  a  reaccomplished  report  signed  by  all   the   original
evaluators with supporting memorandums from each  of  them.  The  additional
rater states he was aware there were  problems  between  the  applicant  and
rater however he would not let that impact his  judgment.  DPSIDEP  believes
that since the additional rater was aware of the  problems,  he  could  have
made corrections at the time the report was being  accomplished  -  not  two
years after the fact. In addition, there are two character  references  from
his peers that mention tension between the applicant and his  rater  however
the tension was described more as professional disagreements rather  than  a
personality   conflict.    In    worker-supervisor    relationships,    some
disagreements  are  likely  to  occur  since  a  worker  must  abide  by   a
supervisor's policies  and  decisions.  Personnel  who  do  not  perform  at
expected  standards  or  require  close  supervision  may  believe  that  an
evaluator is personally biased; however,  the  conflict  generated  by  this
personal  attention  is  usually  professional  rather  than  personal.   To
convince the board that an evaluator was unfavorably biased,  the  applicant
must cite specific examples of  the  conflict  or  bias.  Provide  firsthand
evidence that clearly shows how the conflict prevented  the  evaluator  from
preparing a fair and accurate report. If other evaluators support an  appeal
because they were unaware of a conflict at the  time,  they  should  provide
specific information which leads them  to  believe  the  report  is  not  an
objective assessment. The applicant  must  provide  factual,  specific,  and
substantiated  information  from  credible  officials  that  is   based   on
firsthand observation or knowledge. As presented, the  applicant's  case  is
based purely on unsubstantiated conjecture  that  there  was  a  personality
conflict between him and his rater.

The applicant contends he asked to see a draft of the OPR to ensure  it  was
a proper reflection of his performance but was  denied.  Unfortunately,  Air
Force policy at the time the report was  written  prohibited  a  rater  from
providing a copy or showing the report to the ratee prior to it  becoming  a
matter of record. Therefore, there was no injustice committed by  the  rater
denying the applicant's request.

The applicant contends the Duty Air Force Specialty  (DAFSC)  is  incorrect,
however he provided no evidence to support his  contention.  DPSIDEP  states
that many applicants have a tendency  to  confuse  their  DAFSC  with  their
Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) or even  their  Control  Air  Force
Specialty Code (CAFSC). It is not uncommon for an  individual  to  hold  one
PAFSC and be working in his  DAFSC;  in  fact  this  is  usually  the  case.
However, if the applicant is convinced  the  DAFSC  is  incorrect;  he  must
provide supporting documentation such as a  copy  of  the  manning  document
which shows he was actually sitting in a position where  the  DAFSC  was  in
fact 11H4E, versus Q11H4E. Unfortunately however, he  has  provided  nothing
but his statement.

AFPC/DPSIDEP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of  SSB  consideration  but  concurs  with  the
recommendation from AFPC/DPSIDEP.

AFSC/DPSOO's complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his appeal, the applicant states an OPR written in this manner sends  the
message that he was a below  average  officer  who  did  little  or  nothing
during the previous year except for a brief four-month  deployment.  Nothing
could be further from the truth. OPRs  are  the  backbone  of  an  officer's
career--the primary record of  an  individual's  contributions  to  the  Air
Force and an indicator of future potential. If allowed to remain  in  place,
this weak OPR will negatively affect every aspect of his  career  for  years
to come. If, after reviewing all  the  evidence,  the  Board  is  still  not
convinced an injustice has occurred in  his  case,  he  asks  the  Board  to
consider one final thing.  Should  the  decision  be  made  to  replace  his
current 2005 OPR, no harm is done to the Air Force  other  than  a  few  man
hours of work to  make  administrative  changes  to  his  permanent  record.
Conversely, if the Board decides  not  to  replace  his  current  2005  OPR,
unwarranted damage will undoubtedly be  done  to  his  military  career.  He
believes the Board will agree that this more than meets  the  definition  of
an injustice.  The applicant has  provided  additional  letters  of  support
from supervisors and co-workers.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice  warranting  favorable  consideration  of
the applicant’s request. The evidence provided  by  the  applicant  and  the
supporting documents he presented as part of his rebuttal to the  Air  Force
advisories are more than sufficient to show that the  OPR  in  question  was
not a fair and accurate representation of his performance during the  rating
period.  While we  are  sensitive  to  DPSIDEP’s  statement  in  support  of
denying his request based on the stringent rules that govern OPRs,  we  were
ultimately persuaded by the support provided from the additional and  senior
raters.  Perhaps most convincing to us  was  the  support  provided  by  his
rater at the time.  There was no evidence provided to  indicate  his  rating
chain acted for any reason other than  the  ones  they  presented  in  their
letters.  Consequently, we conclude that the applicant’s records  should  be
changed to substitute the revised OPR and to afford  him  SSB  consideration
for the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Therefore, in view of  the
above findings, we recommend that his records be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF IMT 707A, Field Grade Officer
Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 8 July 2004 through 7
July 2005, be declared void and removed from his records and that the
attached OPR be accepted for file in its place.

It is further directed that he be considered  for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel by a Special  Selection  Board  for  the  CY06C  Lieutenant  Colonel
Central Selection Board and for any subsequent boards  in  which  the  above
correction was not a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  Docket  Number     BC-2007-
03666 in Executive Session on 7 May 2008, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member














All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 07, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 14 Dec 07.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 11 Jan 08.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jan 08.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 29 Feb 08, w/atchs.





                             THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2007-03666




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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the AF IMT 707A,
Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 8
July 2004 through 7 July 2005, be declared void and removed from his
records and the attached OPR be accepted for file in its place.

           It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY06C Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board and for any subsequent boards in which the
above correction was not a matter of record.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
OPR