RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04560
                                COUNSEL:  NONE 
    			 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 
ending 28 Sep 12 be changed to reflect a “Meets Standards” 
rating or the OPR be void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He submitted his request to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board 
(ERAB) without success and has exhausted available 
administrative remedies.  

He was marked as “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section IX, 
Performance Factors, Item 5, Judgment and Decisions, because he 
“failed to take corrective action as the aircraft commander in a 
Class A CV-22 Mishap.”

The OPR is unjust because the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) 
convened after the mishap determined his lack of judgment was 
linked to a lack of formal training and visual reference guides. 

Section IV, Rater Overall Assessment, reflects “Rater was 
deployed, feedback not accomplished.”  He and his rater were 
deployed to the same location and saw each other daily from Dec 
11 to Jan 12.  Additionally, they worked together upon his 
return from deployment and through the mishap period.  There was 
ample time to conduct feedback in person.  At no time was his 
judgment deficient, nor was he given an opportunity to correct 
the alleged deficiency.  

He takes responsibility for his actions as the aircraft 
commander but he was not given the tools necessary to exercise 
proper judgment which would have altered the outcome of the 
flight.  

The evidence of his lack of training is supported by the FEB’s 
Findings and Recommendations, dated 20 Nov 12.  The board of 
three Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) command 
pilots ruled that his overall judgment was not in question.
?
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his referral OPR and rebuttal, FEB Findings 
and Recommendations and various other documents associated with 
his request.  

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

________________________________________________________________ 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is on active duty in the Regular Air Force.

On 13 Jun 12, he was the aircraft commander of a CV-22 aircraft 
that crashed, a Class A Mishap.   

In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and 
Reports, paragraph 1.10., Mishap and Event Classification, a 
mishap resulting in damages totaling $2,000,000 or more, a 
fatality or permanent total disability, destruction of a DOD 
aircraft, or permanent loss of primary mission capability of a 
space vehicle is considered a Class A Mishap.  

The FEB Findings and Recommendations, dated 20 Nov 12, 
determined he exhibited a lack of judgment as the aircraft 
commander by failing to fly conversion mode formation IAW with 
directions outlined in the CV-22 flight manual and by failing to 
take corrective action by either directing the mishap co-pilot 
to alter the aircraft position relative to the lead aircraft or 
taking control of the mishap aircraft and correcting its 
position so as to avoid the lead’s wake.  The FEB determined the 
lack of judgment and improper assessment of his aircraft’s 
position was directly linked to a lack of formal training on how 
to fly formation in the conversion configuration as well as a 
lack of visual reference guides.  The FEB concluded they did not 
believe his overall judgment to be in question, nor did they 
question his ability to continue in aviation service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial based on a lack of corroborating 
evidence and the presumed legitimacy of the OPR.  To grant 
relief would be contrary to established Air Force instructions 
in that the evaluation is presumed accurate at the time it is 
accomplished and placed in the military personnel record.  

The applicant did file an appeal through the ERAB IAW AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 
however, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or 
injustice and denied the applicant’s request for relief.
He contends the referral OPR should be removed due to the FEB 
recommending he continue aviation service, even after a Class A 
Mishap.  According to the findings of the FEB, the applicant 
exhibited a lack of judgment as aircraft commander and as a 
result he was marked “Does Not Meet Standards” under the 
“Judgment and Decisions” block.  Although the FEB concluded he 
continue his aviation service, it does not clear him from any 
administrative actions taken against him for the grave incident 
as the evaluators saw fit; specifically, the referral OPR which 
holds the applicant accountable for his actions.  He has 
provided insufficient evidence to show the OPR was written 
inaccurately or unjustly.  Moreover, a final review of the 
contested evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater, 
as well as a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander 
which served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure 
the report was given fair consideration IAW the established 
intent of the Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System and Air 
Force policies and procedures.

He also contends that feedback was not accomplished within the 
reporting period, however, he confirms he was deployed with his 
rater and saw him daily; thus received day-to-day verbal 
feedback.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because there was 
a lack of counseling or feedback per AFI 36-2406, paragraph 
2.10.  Furthermore, AFI 36-2401, paragraph A1.5.8, states that 
only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was 
provided.  While current Air Force policy requires performance 
feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information 
provided during feedback sessions and the assessment on 
evaluation reports does not necessarily exist.  The lack of 
counseling or feedback, by itself, is not sufficient to 
challenge the accuracy or justness of a report.  Therefore, this 
specific contention is not IAW established Air Force policy and 
procedures and is without any merit.

He has not provided sufficient documentation or evidence to 
prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered 
unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation 
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of 
record.  It is considered to represent the rating chain’s best 
judgment at the time it is rendered.  In order 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 
information from the rating officials on the contested report.  
Without the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude 
that the report is accurate as written.  Only strong evidence to 
the contrary warrants correction or removal of a report from an 
individual’s record.  He has not substantiated the contested 
report was rendered inaccurately and in good faith by all 
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  


The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 Sep 14, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was provided to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, this office has not received a response.
  
________________________________________________________________ 

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 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, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force OPR and adopt its rationale as 
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the 
victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above and 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 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 
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 Docket Number BC-
2013-04560 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

     , Panel Chair
     , Member
     , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, 19 Sep 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 Aug 14.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Sep 14.