RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03975
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) ending  20  January  2005  be  declared
void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report is not a  correct  representation  of  his  job  performance  but
instead it’s  a  repercussion  from  the  Mission  Support  Group  Commander
(MSG/CC).  He was trying  to  protect  his  squadron  and  airmen  from  the
hostile work environment the MSG/CC created.  He had many successes  as  the
commander of the 17th Security  Forces  Squadron  (17  SFS).   He  had  many
personal successes during this period including completing Air  Command  and
Staff College (ACSC) while simultaneously working on a master’s degree.   He
coached for a city recreation league, was active in the  Civil  Air  Patrol,
led men's Bible study, and facilitated a chapel sponsored  financial  class.
One of the toughest jobs he faced as a commander was notifying  the  parents
of a deployed airman that their son had been  critically  injured.   It  was
the first security forces injury in Iraq and there  were  no  guidelines  on
the  process  since  he  was  not  deceased.   The  Wing  Commander  (WG/CC)
requested he work directly with her through this process  since  the  MSG/CC
was not available the first day.  Even though he back briefed the MSG/CC  on
all conversations with the WG/CC, the MSG/CC continued  to  countermand  the
WG/CC’s directives and the MSG/CC  indicated  he  should  have  done  things
differently.  The parents can testify about the class act put forth  by  the
Air Force.  On  another  occasion,  the  MSG/CC  ordered  him  to  write  an
Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) on a  departing  master  sergeant  (MSgt).
The MSG/CC told him what rating to put on the report even  though  a  report
was not due.  After speaking with legal and the  military  personnel  flight
(MPF) to confirm he was correct, he told the MSG/CC he would  not  write  an
unjust and illegal report.  The MSG/CC dropped the issue but did not  forget
it.  This started the downward slope of reprisal against the  17  SFS,  more
specifically, him.  Sparked by concerns from a civilian’s IG complaint,  the
WG/CC ordered a Commander Directed  Investigation  (CDI).   A  colonel  from
Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas was summoned to complete  the  investigation.
Even though the investigation was limited in scope, the colonel stated  "the
preponderance  of  evidence  indicated  the   work   environment   (climate)
established by the  MSG/CC  violated  the  AETC/CC  policy  on  harassment."
According to the CDI the leadership  style  of  the  MSG/CC  was  consistent
since taking command of the MSG.   The  MSG/CC  berated,  cussed,  browbeat,
micromanaged and threatened his commanders to the  extent  he  had  rendered
them useless/ineffective.  He  created  a  work  environment  that  was  not
conducive  to  professionalism.   There  was  no   mentoring   of   squadron
commanders as one would expect from a group commander.   Using  Gestapo-like
tactics, he ruled by fear, made work drudgery and  was  more  worried  about
looking bad than fixing problems.  The commanders  in  MSG  were  so  shell-
shocked they did not want to take small problems to the  MSG/CC,  much  less
the big ones.  Any issues taken to the MSG/CC were always maximum  pain  for
minimum gain.  Almost any commander in the group during this timeframe  will
provide similar feedback.  A few  of  them  approached  the  MSG/CC  on  the
environment he was creating and he  subsequently  berated  them  and  kicked
them out of  the  office.   While  they  remained  loyal  to  him  as  their
commander, they were not able to  cover  or  change  his  leadership  style.
This report should be expunged because of several  reasons,  one  being  the
great disparity on his first OPR written by the MSG/CC and  the  second  one
written in 2005.  The second report is the result of  bias  the  MSG/CC  had
against him and the SFS when he refused the  MSG/CC’s  illegal  orders.   He
confronted him  on  the  issue  and  several  other  issues,  including  the
environment he created, and he firmly believes his career suffered  for  it.
The 2005 report has no stratification or  promotion  statement  and  he  had
many successes.  Matched against the 2004 report signed by the  same  rater,
it is an unfounded but clear regression.  The midterm  performance  feedback
conducted 18 August 2004, stated there  was  little  room  for  improvement.
There was no other written feedback provided to warrant the 20 January  2005
report.  The 2005  OPR  has  had  a  detrimental  effect  on  his  promotion
opportunities.  The report is a direct reflection of him trying to take  the
proper  action  and  confront  an  out-of-line  commander  directly  on  his
improper behavior, improper/illegal orders, and the hostile  environment  he
created.  He submitted a package to  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) to have the report  expunged  but  it  was  denied  since  there  was
nothing derogatory in the report.  He  has  exhausted  all  other  means  of
correcting this error.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation  associated  with  the  CDI  and  IG  complaint,   and   other
supporting statements.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air  Force
on 15 February 1993 and was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  major
effective and with a date of rank of 1 April 2003.
The contested report ending 20 January 2005  was  signed  by  his  WG/CC  15
February  2005.   The  applicant  received  “Meets  Standards”  on  all  six
performance factors.  All the other reports in the  applicant's  record  are
checked “Meets Standards.”

He has two non-selections for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  beginning
with the P0506C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the purpose  of  the  appeal
process is to correct errors or injustices, not to  enhance  an  applicant’s
chances for promotion.  Every report is not erroneous or unfair because  the
applicant  believes  it  has,  or  may,  impact  promotion   and/or   career
opportunities.  DPSIDEP is careful to  keep  the  promotion  and  evaluation
issues separated, and to focus on the evaluation report only.  Each case  is
reviewed for compliance with governing  directives,  and  reviewed  for  any
alleged injustices.  DPSIDEP reviewed the contested report and found  it  to
be in compliance with current policy.   DPSIDEP  states  inadequate  or  the
lack of counseling or feedback, by itself, is not  sufficient  to  challenge
the accuracy or the fairness of a report.  Evaluators must confirm they  did
not provide counseling or feedback, and that this directly  resulted  in  an
unfair evaluation.  The applicant  must  also  supply  specific  information
about the unfair evaluation so the board can make a reasonable  judgment  on
appeal.  He provided neither.  An evaluation  report  is  not  erroneous  or
unjust because it is inconsistent with the previous  evaluation.   A  report
evaluates performance  for  a  specific  period  and  reflects  the  ratee’s
performance, conduct, and potential at that time.  The ability  to  function
well  during  one  reporting  period  can  and  may  change  during  another
reporting period.  DPSIDEP would not void a  report  simply  because  it  is
inconsistent with the previous report.  The applicant must prove  the  rater
was in fact repercussive, that he was biased and that the bias affected  his
objectivity to a point that a  fair  and  accurate  report  was  impossible.
Unfortunately, the applicant did not provide sufficient  evidence  that  the
rater retaliated against him.  The  evidence  suggests  he  was  gruff  with
everyone.   Disagreements  in  the  workplace  are  not  unusual   and,   in
themselves, do not substantiate an evaluator cannot be  objective.   DPSIDEP
opines  that  subordinates  are  required  to  abide  by  their   superior’s
decision.  If there was a personality conflict  between  the  applicant  and
the rater which was of such magnitude the  rater  could  not  be  objective,
DPSIDEP believes the additional rater/senior rater would  have  known  about
it and would have made any necessary adjustments to the applicant’s  report.
 The applicant has not  provided  specific  instances  based  on  first-hand
observation which substantiate that the relationship  between  him  and  his
rater were strained to the point an  objective  evaluation  was  impossible.
The supporting documentation the applicant provided is not  germane  to  the
report in question; other than the applicant's allegations  in  his  appeal,
the evidence does not support that the OPR was inaccurate or  unjust.   None
of the statements submitted state the raters could not be objective  in  his
assessment of the  applicant's  duty  performance.   Nor  would  DPSIDEP  be
convinced of  their  ability  to  more  accurately  assess  the  applicant's
performance  considering  they  were  not  the  individuals   charged   with
performing this responsibility.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  8
February 2008 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,  this
office has received no response (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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or  injustice  warranting  corrective  action.   In  this
respect, after a thorough review of the evidence presented  we  believe  the
applicant has established reasonable doubt as to whether or not the  OPR  in
question  is  a  true  and  accurate  portrayal  of  his   performance   and
demonstrated potential during the period in  question.   While  it  may  not
have  been  confirmed  that  a  personality  conflict  existed  between  the
applicant and his supervisor, we do not  find  it  unreasonable  to  believe
there  were  differences  between  the  two  which  may  have  hindered  his
supervisor's ability to  objectively  assess  the  applicant's  performance.
Nevertheless, in consideration of all the circumstances  of  this  case,  we
believe the benefit of any doubt in this matter should be  resolved  in  the
applicant's favor and we recommend that his  records  be  corrected  to  the
extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

Pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating  to
APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF Form 707A, Field  Grade  Officer
Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period  21 January  2004  through
20 January 2005, be declared void and removed from his records.
It is further recommended  that  the  corrected  record  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board  for
the  P0506A  Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  and  for   any
subsequent board in which the OPR closing 20 January 2005 was  a  matter  of
record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2007-
03975 in Executive Session on 18 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms.  Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr.  Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
                 Mr.  Mark J. Novitski, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  Docket   Number   BC-2007-03975   was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 November 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 28 January 2008.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 February 2008.




            CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
            Panel Chair