RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04984

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 
29 April 2011 through 17 August 2011 be voided from his 
permanent records.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He was removed from command on 9 Aug 11 and was ordered to 
report to AFSOC A5/8/9, for duty, on 10 Aug 11.  He reported as 
ordered and as of 10 Aug 11 his supervision under his former 
supervisor was relinquished.  His new supervisor signed a memo 
stating that he started supervision on 10 Aug 11 and approved 
his leave request for the period of 12 - 15 Aug 11.  This leave 
request and approval is evidence that he was assigned to work at 
AFSOC and that he had a new supervisor.  After his removal from 
command, he had no interaction with his former supervisor.  

2.  On 10 August 11, during his initial in-brief, the AFSOC 
Director of Plans and Programs stated that since he was removed 
from command without cause, leadership's plan was to continue to 
provide him an opportunity to make Colonel.   He further stated 
that he (the applicant) was “still on the train.”  On 19 Aug 11, 
he received the referral OPR.  He addressed his concerns to the 
AFSOC Director of Plans and Programs who stated that he misspoke 
on 10 Aug 11, and that wing leadership's plan was to present him 
with a referral OPR.   He informed the AFSOC Director of Plans 
and Programs that he had concerns about the days of supervision.  
He was told not to worry about the days of supervision because 
he and his former supervisor would make it work.  Shortly 
thereafter, he was reassigned back to the wing after his former 
supervisor realized that he did not have enough days of 
supervision for a report.  The subsequent reassignment back to 
the wing was for the sole purpose of issuing a referral report.  
This is a clear integrity violation.  Supervision under the 
former supervisor did not occur after 9 Aug 11.  He has a 
previous OPR that closed out in Mar 2004, which has identical 
circumstances as far as rating and supervision.  In this 
previous assignment from March 2003 thru March 2004, he was 
assigned to the wing, but his supervisor was at AFSOC.  

3.  According to AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems, a commander must have 60 days of supervision to 
generate this type of report.  His former supervisor assumed 
command of the Operations Group on 17 Jun 2011.  His supervision 
started on 17 Jun 2011, and he was relieved of command on 
9 Aug 11, and reassigned to AFSOC with a new supervisor on 
10 Aug 11, therefore there were 53 days of supervision.  AFPC 
initially informed the MPF that his former supervisor lacked 
sufficient days of supervision based on the initial referral 
OPR.  In an attempt to rate him, his former supervisor changed 
his duty title on the subsequent referral OPR.  This change to 
the document occurred after his initial rebuttal.  However, he 
did not change the duty description.  The duty description is 
identical to the initial referral OPR.  The duty description is 
for his previous assignment but the duty title is for his AFSOC 
assignment.  Furthermore, the OPR does not reflect any of his 
accomplishments in his new job.  The remarks pertain to his 
previous assignment as squadron commander.  This is 
inconsistent, incorrect, and unjust.  

4.  During his initial feedback session with his former 
supervisor, on 18 Jul 11, he was told that he was meeting all 
expectations; however, he was under a microscope.  When he asked 
why, his former supervisor just stated “you are.”  His feedback 
form also stated that he needed to return the squadron to a 
standard of excellence and that doing so would take time.  His 
former supervisor failed to list which standards the squadron 
was failing to meet.  After the feedback, he was left to wonder 
what exactly were his leadership’s concerns regarding his 
squadron and him personally.  There were 22 days between the 
time he received feedback on 18 Jul 11 and his removal from 
command on 9 Aug 11.  He was not given an adequate amount of 
time to make corrections.  His former supervisor never once 
indicated that his performance or handlings of matters were 
inconsistent with Air Force values.  On discipline matters, he 
supported all of his decisions.  

5.  The AFSOC/CC commented on the referral OPR stating that he 
is not culpable, but accountable.  Although he agrees with the 
comment that a commander is accountable for the actions of 
his/her command, being accountable simply means having ones 
actions objectively reviewed for conformity with the standards 
expected of a commander.  In this case, he consistently 
demonstrated conformity with the high standards expected of one 
in command.  The OPR fails to link or highlight one thing that 
he did or did not do to contribute to the accusations.  The 
comments are vague and not specific.  Additionally, the OPR 
fails to account for all the good decisions he made as a 
commander.  Here, the standard of not culpable, but accountable 
has been terribly misapplied. If the standard of performance for 
commanders is perfection, then every commander should be fired 
for the missteps of subordinates.  The standard of not culpable, 
but accountable is a hollow logic without a true end or outcome.  
Moreover, no specific incidents were ever cited for the basis of 
this referral OPR and he was never counseled, admonished, or 
reprimanded orally or in writing for any misconduct or 
shortcomings.  He was only told that he was being held 
“accountable although he was not culpable.”

6.  As a former commander, he accepts full responsibility and 
accountability for any shortcomings of the squadron during his 
tenure.  But, none of those shortcomings merit a referral OPR.  
He has served in the Air Force for over 18 years and has never 
been accused or charged with any misconduct.  The allegations in 
question are vague and his former supervisor offers no 
substantial or explicit examples of how he failed in his 
responsibilities as a commander.  By any objective standard, he 
should not have been removed from command or issued a referral 
report.  Flying squadron commanders are normally judged by 
combat performance, flying safety record, performance on 
inspections, and personal conduct.  The squadron excelled at all 
performance criteria and he was never accused of any officer 
misconduct.  His removal from command is an affront to the core 
value of integrity.  Not only does this referral OPR cause him 
great pain, it reflects poorly upon a period of great 
satisfaction in his life.  He treasures his experiences and the 
hard work of everyone in his former squadron.  He has not done 
anything to warrant a referral OPR.

In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal 
statement, copies of support documents, and documents extracted 
from his military personnel record (MPR).  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Air Force 
commissioned officer in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5).  

The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, to request 
the OPR be voided from his records.  The ERAB considered the 
request, however, they were not convinced the report was unjust 
or wrong, and denied the requested relief.  

The following is a resume of his last five OPR ratings 
commencing with the most recent report closing on 30 June 2012.  

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  30 Jun 2012			Meets Standards (MS)
*			  17 Aug 2011			Does Not Meet Standards
			  28 Apr 2011			MS
			  28 Apr 2010			MS
			  28 May 2009			MS

* - Contested Report

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states, the applicant 
contends that his OPR with an inclusive period of 29 Apr 11 
through 17 Aug 11 was unjustly rendered due to various 
violations, by his rating chain, of the referral process in 
accordance with (lAW) AFI 36-2406 guidance.  Based on lack of 
corroborating evidence provided by the applicant, they recommend 
that the contested evaluation not be voided from his permanent 
record.

2.  The applicant contends that he was inappropriately held 
accountable for events that occurred during his tenure.  A 
review of the contested OPR clearly shows that the rater did in 
fact clearly detail the behavior that caused the report to be 
referred.  The specific referral comment “Removed from command 
as I lost confidence in his ability to effectively command his 
squadron” must be taken at face value in this case.  The 
applicant was in fact in this same unit during his prior 
reporting period and in a position of authority on both 
evaluations.  Additionally, the applicant has in no way proven 
in his appeal that his rater improperly held him accountable for 
events that occurred during his tenure.  In the absence of any 
statements from the rating chain to either confirm or deny these 
accusations, and to shed light on their view of these 
allegations, it is not possible to successfully make these 
assumptions.  Based on the fact that these allegations have not 
been confirmed by any independent investigative body, such as 
the Inspector General (IG) or other appropriate investigative 
body, they find these allegations made by the applicant to be 
baseless and without any merit.  

3.  Regarding the applicant’s allegation that his rater failed 
to accrue the minimum number of days (60) to render the referral 
OPR, they have reviewed the OPR in question and have noted that 
the rater recorded 62 days of supervision on the OPR.  The test 
here is for the applicant to prove that this number of days is 
false.  The applicant states that the rater did not assume group 
command until 17 Jun 11.  Nevertheless, the close-out date being 
17 Aug 11 would still equate to 62 days of total supervision.  
The applicant fails to understand that when he was “removed from 
command,” he was still assigned as a member of his former 
squadron with duties at AFSOC.  In accordance with AFI 36-2406, 
paragraph 3.2.5.4, “commanders may deviate from the normal 
(supervisory) rating chain when necessary to meet grade 
requirements or to accommodate unique organizational structures 
and situations where personnel are temporarily loaned or 
matrixed to other activities outside the ratee’s assigned PAS.”  
In this case, it appears that this is exactly what transpired in 
that the applicant was temporarily loaned to AFSOC on 10 Aug 11.  
This is also corroborated by the letter dated 31 Oct 11, signed 
by the AFSOC/CC that the  permanent change of assignment (PCA) 
action from the squadron to AFSOC was approved effective 
17 Aug 11. This confirmed that the 62 days of accrued 
supervision obtained by the rater is correct.  

4.  The applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence 
to prove any of his assertions that the report was rendered 
unfairly or unjustly, and has merely provided his view of events  
as he believes them to be true.  Air Force policy is that an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a 
matter of record.  Additionally, it is considered to represent 
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.  It is determined that the 
report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable Air 
Force regulations.  They contend that once a report is accepted 
for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual's record.  The burden 
of proof is on the applicant.  The applicant has not 
substantiated that the contested OPR was not rendered in good 
faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the 
time.

The complete DPSID evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant states that he disagrees with 
AFPC/DPSID's assessment and evaluation.  His case is about 
integrity and injustice.  The evaluation fails to address 
either.  His removal from command and the issuance of a referral 
OPR violates the Air Force core value of integrity.  The fact 
remains that the WG/CC and OG/CC manipulated the assignment 
management system to issue the referral.  The mere fact that the 
WG/CC signed a letter on 31 Oct 2011, a full 85 days after his 
removal from command illustrates a commitment to manipulate the 
system.  His actions beg the question, why the letter was issued 
85 days after the fact.  

The evaluation also fails to point out the most important fact 
of the memorandum signed by his current supervisor who stated 
that supervision began on 10 Aug 11.  This fact coupled with his 
in-processing and all the associated documents provided to, but 
ignored by, the evaluator shows that he neither had any duties 
at the squadron, nor interaction with anyone in his prior chain 
of command.  Again, this is about integrity and injustice.  The 
applicant reiterates his contentions that during his tenure the 
squadron excelled at all performance criteria, he took 
disciplinary action when necessary and he held everyone 
accountable.  

The applicant’s 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.  After 
reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the 
contested OPR is inaccurate or that its contents violate 
governing directives.  We have noted the applicant’s contentions 
concerning the contested report and his allegations that the OPR 
violates the Air Force core value of integrity.  However, while 
the applicant may believe this is the case, there is nothing in 
the evidence provided which would lead us to believe that the 
OPR in question was prepared with any motivation on the part of 
the evaluators other than to report their assessment of the 
applicant’s performance.  Other than his own assertions, we have 
seen no evidence by the applicant that the evaluators abused 
their discretionary authority, that the report is technically 
flawed, or that the evaluators comments are based on 
inappropriate considerations.  Therefore, 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 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 issue 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 22 August 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Chair
      , Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04984:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Nov 2012, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 2012.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jan 2013.




                                   
                                   Chair