RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-04085
                             INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXX                    COUNSEL:  NONE
                                 HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 1 April 2004  through
26 February 2005 and his  P0505A  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  be
voided and removed from his records.
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His feedback  was  not  conducted  pursuant  to  AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and
Enlisted Evaluation Systems.  His OPR states  feedback  was  accomplished  1
January 2005; however, this is the date he was removed from command.  At  no
time during the reporting period was informal feedback accomplished nor  did
he  receive  any  type  of   verbal/written   counseling   indicating   poor
performance.  In addition, 14 of the 20 pages he submitted as  his  rebuttal
were not forwarded as part of the official  record.   Finally  there  is  no
evidence his  squadron  had  a  morale  or  performance  problem.   Negative
comments  in  the  OPR  are  nonspecific/vague  and  not  supported  by  the
markings.

In support  of  his  request,  applicant  provides  a  personal  memorandum,
memorandums from his  defense  counsel,  email  correspondence,  copy  of  a
memorandum  from  374  AW/CC,  and  copies  of   AF   IMT   709,   Promotion
Recommendation, AF IMT 707A,  Field  Grade  Officer  Reports  and  character
letters.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on 8 April 1990  and
was progressively promoted to the grade of major effective and with  a  date
of rank of 1 August 2001.

The  applicant  has  four  nonselections  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile:


              PERIOD ENDINGS      OVERALL EVALUATION


          26 Feb 07                MEETS STANDARDS (MS)

           26 Feb 06                        MS
           26 Feb 05                        MS (Contested Report)
           31 Mar 04                        MS
           31 Mar 03                        MS
           31 Mar 02                        MS
           31 Mar 01                        MS
           31 Mar 00                        MS
           31 Mar 99                        MS
           31 Mar 98                        MS
           31 Mar 97                        MS
           31 Mar 96                        MS
           31 Mar 95                        MS
           31 Mar 94                        MS
           31 Jul 93                        MS
           31 Jul 92                        MS
           30 Sep 91                        MS
           26 Feb 91                        MS


________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP  recommends  denial.   DPSIDEP  states  if  the  applicant  can
provide a statement from the rater that feedback was not  accomplished,  the
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) could  remove  the  1  January  2005
date and replace it with the  statement  “Feedback  was  not  accomplished.”
Unfortunately the applicant did  not  provide  documentation  that  supports
this.  A rater’s  failure  to  conduct  a  required  or  requested  feedback
session will not of itself invalidate any subsequent performance reports  or
PRFs.  The applicant  submitted  statements  in  his  support;  however,  he
provided no documentation from any of the applicable  evaluators.   He  only
presented his side of the story and DPSIDEP believes the local legal  office
would not have blessed a  commander  being  relieved  from  command  without
sufficient cause.   DPSIDEP  reviewed  the  statements  in  Section  IV  and
determined it is in  compliance  with  the  directives.   DPSIDEP  can  only
speculate the rater marked the applicant based on  his  overall  performance
during the entire reporting period; however, felt  the  contested  statement
was substantial enough that it  warranted  being  mentioned.   An  OPR  that
contains referral remarks can still  have  “Meets  Standards”  markings  and
vice versa.  The Air  Force  policy  does  not  mandate  that  if  you  have
referral remarks, you must downgrade  the  markings  and  vice  versa.   The
applicant submitted a 20-page rebuttal; unfortunately IAW with AFI  36-2406,
the rebuttal is limited to 10 pages.  The OPR and PRF were not permitted  to
be filed IAW AFI 36-2406, which states that items which are already part  of
the permanent record will be removed from  the  referral  package  prior  to
filing.  AFI 36-2406 states the ratee may have  another  individual  prepare
comments on his or her behalf; however, when this is done,  the  ratee  must
include a statement confirming the document  is  to  be  considered  as  the
ratee’s  response.   The  applicant  did  not  provide  such  a   statement,
therefore unauthorized documents were removed.  This was  explained  to  the
applicant in the referral memorandum,  which  he  signed.   However,  if  he
feels strongly enough that the most important 10 pages did  not  get  placed
in his record, he could submit an appeal to the ERAB as  long  as  it  meets
the requirements set forth in AFI 36-2406.  The applicant was instructed  to
submit his rebuttal to  the  additional  rater.   The  applicant  states  he
turned in 20 pages; however, only 14 were  placed  in  his  records.   Since
there is  no  evidence  to  state  otherwise,  i.e.  a  statement  from  the
additional rater that he only reviewed 14  pages,  DPSIDEP  deeply  believes
the  applicant  turned  in  the  rebuttal  to  the  additional  rater.   The
additional rater took his action and forwarded it to the military  personnel
flight (MPF), who in turn forwarded the original to AFPC  for  file  in  the
applicant’s  officer  selection  record   (OSR).    DPSIDEP   believes   the
additional rater did in fact consider the entire 20 pages, when  technically
he was  only  required  to  consider  the  first  10  pages,  therefore  the
statement that his rater carefully considered his comments to  the  referral
memo should not be removed.

To appeal a PRF, the applicant must provide support and  documentation  from
the senior rater and management level review (MLR) president and  any  other
pertinent  documentation  as  outlined  in  AFI  36-2406  and  AFI  36-2401.
Unfortunately the applicant provided no supporting documentation  and  there
are no procedural or administrative errors or injustices  contained  in  the
contested PRF.  DPSIDEP states if the PRF is removed  from  the  record  for
SSB consideration, the applicant will be placed at  an  unfair  disadvantage
since his record would be the only record without a PRF.  Removing  the  PRF
would do more harm to him than leaving it in place.

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  22
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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of  record,
we are not persuaded that the contested report or  PRF  should  be  declared
void and removed from his records.  We are not persuaded by the  applicant's
assertions that the comments contained in the report  or  the  PRF  were  in
error or contrary to the provisions of the  governing  instruction  or  that
the applicant was rated unfairly.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale  as  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of  material  error  or  injustice;  the  application  was  denied
without  a  personal  appearance;  and  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-
04085 in Executive Session on 27 March 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2007-04085 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 December 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 8 February 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 February 2008.



                                   GREGORY A. PARKER
                                   Panel Chair