RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01268
            INDEX CODE:  111.02
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES
________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  of  25  June
2006 through 28 June 2007 be voided.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The referral OPR he received does not accurately reflect his leadership and
performance during the rating period.  The comments are so vague and he  is
still unaware of what they refer to.  This has made it impossible  for  him
to rebut or respond in an intelligent manner.  There was also an underlying
personal bias by his rating official and an undue delay in  the  processing
of his report.  His report was signed by his senior rater 30 November 2007;
but was not entered into his records (so he could initiate an appeal) until
14 February 2008.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal  statement,  a
copy of his AF IMT’s 724A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report  Feedback
Worksheet (MAJ – COL), AF  IMT’s  707A,  Field  Grade  Officer  Performance
Report (MAJ –  COL),  copies  of  email  communiqués,  memorandums,  and  a
Protective/Peace Order.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on 12 February 1988
and was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant  colonel,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 2003.

On  23  October  2006,  his  commander  directed   a   Commander   Directed
Investigation (CDI) be conducted to investigate allegations of  ineffective
leadership and a detrimental command climate in the  applicant’s  squadron.
The investigation revealed that the  climate  concerns  were  well-founded.
There were clear issues surrounding the bond of trust between the  squadron
leadership and subordinates.

On 22 June 2007, another CDI was conducted to  investigate  allegations  of
possible assault consummated  by  battery  in  violation  of  Article  128,
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)  and  making  false  statements  in
violation of  Article  107,  UCMJ  on  the  part  of  the  applicant.   The
investigation revealed that the accusations of abuse came down to “he said,
she said.” However the investigating officer (IO) felt the physical battery
did occur.  In reference to the allegations of making  a  false  statement,
the IO found that he did not make a false statement.

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

         PERIOD ENDING       OVERALL EVALUATION

       5 Feb 08                        MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
      28 Jun 07                        MS (Contested Report)
      24 Jun 06                        MS
      24 Jun 05                        MS
      30 Jun 04                        MS
      30 Jun 03                        MS
      25 Jan 03                        MS
      25 Jan 02                        MS
      25 Jan 01                        MS
      25 Jan 00                        MS
      25 Jan 99                        MS

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the applicant was given  30
days to turn around his command climate or a CDI would be  initiated.   His
feedback addressed issues needing attention and he was told his command was
on thin ice.  The CDI was eventually initiated  and  he  was  removed  from
command.  The evidence provided does not substantiate  that  the  contested
report is inaccurate or unjust.  He provides no evidence that his rater was
unable to render a fair and accurate assessment of  his  performance.   His
poor judgment resulted in his removal from command.  Although there appears
to have been an untimely delay in making his report a matter of record,  it
does not make the report inaccurate  or  unjust;  therefore,  it  does  not
justify voiding the report.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating the CDI was not the reason for  his  relief
of command.  Despite his attempts to receive information on the CDI, he has
yet to receive a copy of the report.   The  allegation  that  he  may  have
divulged private psychological information about a member of his command is
not accurate.  This allegation stemmed from an incident  involving  one  of
his young Airmen who had made  suicidal  ideations  approximately  2  weeks
after his change of command, and had been involved in a  shooting  incident
while in Washington, DC.  When his mother asked to speak with her  son,  he
expressed concern about her son, nothing more.   He  is  a  prior  enlisted
officer and has children of his own  slightly  younger  than  his  troubled
Airman.  He did nothing other than relate to the Airman’s mother  the  same
concern he would have appreciated being expressed to him if  the  situation
were reversed.

He has never failed to obey a lawful order  or  regulation.   The  CDI  was
initiated  based  on  an  allegation  of  "ineffective  leadership.”    The
allegation of domestic violence is not factual.  His former spouse had  her
reasons for the actions she undertook, namely to better posture herself for
their divorce proceedings.  Without  violating  the  Privacy  Act,  he  had
discussed with her the general procedures used when allegations of  spousal
abuse were brought before him.  His spouse knew all she had to  do  was  to
make an allegation of domestic violence and the Air  Force  would  have  no
other choice than to initiate  investigative  action,  providing  her  with
additional  ammunition  for  civil  proceeding.   In  the  end,  the  civil
protective order was dismissed and  the  corresponding  CDI  reporting  the
allegations were baseless.

His squadron performed extremely well during his tour of duty.  As  to  the
underlying personal bias by his  rating  official,  approximately  40  days
before his supervisor’s change  of  command  he  was  ordered  to  write  a
performance report on his director of operations 30 days early.   This  was
directed, in his opinion, so his supervisor would ensure the best  possible
report for his subordinate, who had  routinely  gone  behind  his  back  to
discuss issues with  his  supervisor,  issues  that  he  should  have  been
afforded an opportunity to address.  This  personal  relationship  had  its
foundation at a previous base where the two officers had  served  together.
This referral report  is  not  a  fair  reflection  of  his  leadership  or
performance as a whole during the rating  period.   Further,  the  referral
comment was so vague that he is unaware of what they refer to and this  has
made it impossible for him  to  rebut  or  respond  to  the  report  in  an
intelligent manner.

The complete response is attached at (Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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  injustice.   We  took  careful  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
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.   We  do  not  find  his  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently  persuasive  in  this  matter.   Additionally,  we  are   not
persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true
and accurate assessment of  his  performance  and  demonstrated  potential
during the specified time period or that the  comments  contained  in  the
report were in error or  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  the  governing
instruction.  Therefore, in the absence  of  persuasive  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 RECOMMENDED THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 BC-2008-01268  in  Executive
Session on 14 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms.  B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms.  Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms.  Teri G. Spoutz, Member




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket  Number  BC-
2008-01268 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 April 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  CDI Report of Investigation – Withdrawn.
   Exhibit C.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 May 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 June 2008.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 July 2008, w/atchs.




            B. J. WHITE-OLSON
            Panel Chair