RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05413

						COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 
2 May 10 through 7 Mar 11 be removed from his records.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a “Does Not Meet” marking in Section III. Performance 
Factors on the contested report.  His duty performance during the 
reporting period was satisfactory and above Air Force standards.  
During this reporting period he decreased the rate of fitness 
failures, improved mission focus, performed a mission 
reorganization, saved tax dollars and resources.

The comment in Section IV. Rater Overall Assessment of the 
contested report regarding his removal from command due to a steep 
decline in unit morale and subsequent loss of confidence was 
unfair, unjustified, rendered in retaliation and is not an 
accurate assessment of his duty performance.  

The “Does Not Meet” markings in Section IX, Performance Factors, 
on the contested report are unproven and unjustified.  He met and 
exceeded Air Force standards in leadership skills, judgment and 
decision making.  

His rater and additional rater had undue influence over his 
authority within the unit which is illegal under the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

During his feedback, negative comments were made regarding him 
being a Naval Academy graduate.

The evidence shows the scores for the unit climate assessment 
(UCA) were within the average scores for the Air Force and only a 
13 point decrease from the previous year UCA.

He did not receive any input or feedback from his rater regarding 
receiving a referral performance report.

After being relieved from command, his rater assigned him to a 
position below his grade and skill level.

During his command, he was held responsible for actions taken by 
his operations officer during a temporary duty (TDY) and 
conference.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 May 93, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 7 Mar 11, the applicant was removed from command due to a loss 
of confidence by his rater and received a command directed 
referral performance report.

On 8 Mar 11, the applicant filed an AF Form 102, Inspector General 
Personal and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Complaint Registration, 
alleging abuse of authority, retribution and reprisal by his 
commanders.  The Commander, 18 AF directed an investigation into 
the applicant’s allegations.  The investigation was conducted from 
14-29 Apr 11.  The applicant also filed a Congressional Complaint 
regarding the same issues as the IG complaint.  The specific 
allegations and findings are as follows:

Allegation 1.  On 7 Mar 11, Col M-- relieved the applicant from 
command in reprisal for his making a protected communication (PC).

FINDING:  NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation 2.  On or about 30 Mar 11, Col M--, issued a referral 
OPR to the applicant in reprisal for his PC.

FINDING:  NOT SUBSTANTIATED

Allegation 3.  On or about May 11, Col M--, withheld a nomination 
for decoration for the applicant in reprisal for making a PC.

FINDING:  NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation 4.  On or about 7 Mar 11, Col O-- approved the decision 
to relieve the applicant from command in reprisal for making a PC.

FINDING:  NOT SUBSTANTIATED.


Allegation 5.  On or about 30 Mar 11, Col O-- approved the 
decision to issue a referral OPR to the applicant in reprisal for 
making a PC.

FINDING:  NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation 6.  On or about May 11, Col O-- concurred with the 
decision to withhold a decoration for the applicant in reprisal 
for making a pc.

FINDING:  NOT SUBSTANTIATED.

On 18 Jul 11, AMC/IGQ notified the applicant that his Reprisal 
Complaint Analysis (RCA) complaint had been reviewed and 
determined his allegations lacked evidence of a violation of law, 
instruction, regulation or policy and was dismissed in accordance 
with the provisions of AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints 
Resolution.  He was further informed that due to the nature of his 
complaint, it would be reviewed by the Secretary of the Air 
Force’s Complaints Resolution Directorate (SAF/IGQ) and the office 
of Military Reprisal Investigations, Department of Defense 
Inspector General (DoD-IG).

On 20 Jun 12, the applicant was notified his complaint was 
reviewed by SAF/IGQ and DoD-IG Whistleblower Reprisal 
Investigations Directorate who concurred with findings of AMC/IG 
and dismissed the applicant’s complaint.

On 1 Jul 12, the applicant was retired and credited with 20 years 
and 9 days of active service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Appeals’ Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the request and 
was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust 
and denied the request for relief.

The applicant’s wing commander directed a UCA at the end of 2010.  
The applicant was ordered to report and discuss the results of the 
UCA with his rater and additional rater.  As a result of the UCA, 
his rater issued him a Letter of Counseling (LOC).

The evaluators are required to consider the significance and 
frequency of such incidents in assessing the performance and 
potential of their ratees.  Only the evaluators can determine how 
much an incident influenced the report.  In accordance with AFI 
36-2406, Office and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 1.3.1, 
evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance 
reports on misconduct that reflects a disregard of the law, 
whether civil or the UCMJ, or when adverse actions as Article 15, 
Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on 
the Control Roster have been taken.  The inclusion of the referral 
comment on the contested report was appropriate and within the 
rater’s authority to document the incident.  Moreover, a final 
review of the contested report was accomplished by the additional 
rater and subsequent agreement by the reviewer served as a final 
“check and balance” in order to ensure the report was given fair 
consideration in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies 
and procedures.

The memorandum from his rater relieving him from command noted the 
applicant was notified repeatedly regarding significant issues 
with his leadership style and the impact it had on the unit.  It 
further stated he was provided ample recommendation and 
opportunities to rectify the situation.  The applicant’s 
evaluators afforded him every opportunity to improve the unit 
climate; however, after his failure, they had no choice but to 
remove him from command.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation 
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record, 
and is a representation of 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 not provided any evidence of support from his rating 
chain.  Without such documentation, the appropriate conclusion is 
that the contested OPR is accurate as written and was accomplished 
in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures.  As for the supporting statement provided by the 
applicant, while individuals outside of the rating chain are 
entitled to their opinion of the applicant's duty performance and 
the events occurring around the time the OPR was rendered, they 
are not in a better position to evaluate the applicant’s duty 
performance than those who were assigned that responsibility.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA concurs with the findings of AFPC/DPSID and recommends the 
requested relief be denied.  The applicant alleges the contested 
OPR was inaccurate and improperly rendered due to retaliation and 
improper command influence.  While the applicant indicated he 
attached documentation that would show the errors, injustices, and 
retaliation he underwent, other than four character references, 
and an email string, he has only provided his account of the 
events in an effort to establish the alleged wrongdoings against 
him.  The applicant has not provided any evidence to corroborate 
his allegations.  In fact, the writers of the character statement 
do not have any personal knowledge of the events that formed the 
basis of the referral report.  Furthermore, the email string does 
nothing more than to suggest the command might want to be on the 
look-out for possible issues with the applicant’s leadership 
style.  Furthermore, the emails do not establish any prejudgment 
or command influence on the part of the commanders in his chain of 
command.  The applicant has not provided any evidence other than 
his own assertions in support of his allegations.   

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPRs and 
alleges had the Air Force conducted a proper investigation from 
the start the evidence that would have established his case would 
not have been destroyed.

When he took over the squadron, it had many issues left from the 
previous commander, to include low morale, fitness failures, waste 
of resources, safety, and lack of discipline.  However, during his 
short tenure, he was able to reduce the number of fitness 
failures, decrease spending, improve safety, and ensure timely and 
fair discipline to the unit.  

When the contested report was originally filed, it was returned 
twice for improper information and wording, which his rater and 
additional rater knew was not in compliance with the regulation.  
Many of his accomplishments were not included in the contested 
report, such as a higher safety record, perfect inspection 
results, his being lauded multiple times, and initiatives of his 
that were benchmarked by 18 AF/CC and AMC/CC.  Furthermore, a 13 
point change over the course of one UCA without follow-up is not 
statistically reliable or significant.  There was not a “check and 
balance” of his referral OPR because his rater and additional 
rater conspired during the process.  His rating chain knew of all 
of his accomplishments, but chose to ignore them.  His leadership 
style was effective and produced positive results.  His UCA score 
was average and in some cases above average.

He requests an investigation into this matter, to include the 
willful destruction of records.  A review of his official record 
before and after the contested OPR should be conducted because 
this will show the contested OPR is not indicative of his 
performance over his 20 year plus career.  

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.   


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.  The applicant 
alleges he has been the victim of an error or injustice (10 USC 
1552) and that he has been a victim of reprisal and has not been 
afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act 
(10 USC 1034).  He alleges his OPR, rendered for the period ending 
7 Mar 11, be removed from his records due to his rater’s 
retaliation and undue influence against him in the squadron.  
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the 
applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, we are 
not convinced he has been the victim of an error or injustice (10 
USC 1552) or the victim of reprisal (10 USC 1034).  We do not find 
the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in 
support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the 
rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility. 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 comment contained in the 
report was in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing 
instruction.  Furthermore, the applicant did not provide 
persuasive evidence to establish the contested report was not an 
accurate reflection of his performance.  Each evaluator has the 
obligation when writing the performance report to consider any 
incidents of substandard duty performance and the significance of 
the substandard performance in assessing the member's overall 
performance and potential.  In this respect, it appears the 
statement regarding the applicant’s supervisory performance was 
the basis for the contested report.  The applicant has not 
submitted any persuasive evidence showing the rater’s assessment 
of his supervisory skills was inappropriately reflected on the 
report in question.  Furthermore, it appears the applicant was 
provided ample counseling and opportunities to improve his 
supervisory skills.  Lastly, in regards to the applicant’s request 
for an investigation of this matter, to include his allegations of 
the willful destruction of records, we note the Board is not an 
investigative body and that the applicant had the option to file a 
complaint with the Inspector General.  We note the applicant did 
utilize this option; however, none of his allegations of 
wrongdoing were substantiated and, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to question this finding. 
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice or reprisal.  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 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-2013-05413 in Executive Session on 21 Apr 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 Oct 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 15 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, 5 Nov 14.



7