RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-03489
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF IMT 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt Thru Col), 
rendered for the period 7 Dec 2009 through 5 Apr 2010, be 
declared void and removed from his records.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His referral OPR is an inaccurate reflection of his duty 
performance, hastily drafted to improperly demonstrate 
documented accountability for a nuclear inspection failure.

His strong duty performance is proven in the OPR previous to the 
contested referral OPR despite taking command of a neglected 
unit with a known record of inspection failures and unfilled 
positions.

His rater's rater failed the same inspection twice previously, 
with no known accountability.  The commander he replaced was a 
temporary replacement for another fired commander, strongly 
indicating a history of lack of support.  All of the Group's 
worst disciplinary cases were transferred to his unit during a 
period of required increased manpower, poisoning the unit with 
continuing disciplinary issues and requiring increased levels of 
non-judicial punishment and counseling.  This had clear mission 
impact that was beyond the unit’s control.

His requests for replacement personnel were continually denied, 
and his requests for additional training were denied by the 
commander.  These are direct contributors to failures in 
performance.  In short, he could not fix the unit on his own, 
and received extremely poor support from his senior officers.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
Army Commendation Medal citation, some of his OPRs, and a Letter 
of Evaluation. 

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

________________________________________________________________

?
STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in the grade 
of major.

He did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals 
Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

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

Period Ending	Performance Factor

	5 Apr 2012	Meets Standards
	5 Apr 2011	Meets Standards
*	5 Apr 2010	Does Not Meet Standards
	6 Dec 2009	Meets Standards
	6 Dec 2008	Meets Standards

*Contested Report

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states the applicant has 
not provided any significant evidence to prove his assertions 
that the contested OPR was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  The 
report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable 
regulations.  Air Force policy states that an evaluation report 
is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  
Additionally, it represents the rating chain's best judgment at 
the time it is rendered.  To effectively challenge an 
evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the 
rating chain not only for support, but also for 
clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed to provide 
any information/support from any rating official on the 
contested evaluation.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The reason he did not file an appeal through the ERAB is because 
it would require the documented reversal or amendment of the 
rater evaluation or written evidence to that fact, and he 
disagrees with his removal from command and contests the 
subsequent performance report.  It would be unprofessional to 
question a superior officer's judgment and then ask him to 
document his mistake for the record.  Moreover, he agrees with 
the OPR’s assessment that he did not adequately document his own 
accountability within the text of his rebuttal to the contested 
performance report.  Although he continues to disagree with the 
decisions of his rater and rater's rater, he does not have 
further evidence to present in support of his original request.

His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  We took 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission, to 
include his response to the advisory opinion 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 the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We 
are not persuaded by the evidence provided in support of his 
appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate 
assessment of his demonstrated potential during the specified 
time period or that the comments contained in the report were 
contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we find no 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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 5 Feb 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-03489:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 26 Jul 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 2012.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 9 Oct 2012.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, undated.




								
					Panel Chair