RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05444

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His official military record be corrected to reflect his 
time as the 171 Security Forces Squadron Commander from 
27 November 1995 through 21 March 2003.  

2.  His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) with 
attachments, rendered for the period 1 January 2002 through 
31 December 2002, be removed from his records.  

3.  The duplicate OPR rendered for the period 1 January 2002 
through 31 December 2002, be removed from his records.  

4.  His OPRs rendered for the periods 1 January 2003 through 
31 December 2003 and 1 January 2004 through 31 October 2004 be 
removed from his records.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  His command time earned is not reflected in his official 
record.  He acted as, and exercised the authority of, the 
Squadron Commander while he was assigned to the 171 Security 
Forces Squadron.  In Feb 1995 he was moved from his position as 
Mission Support Group Executive Officer to be the Security 
Forces Squadron Executive Officer.  This move was predicated on 
the belief that his prior security police experience and 
personal credibility as an officer would bring some stability to 
a squadron that  was experiencing significant internal strife as 
a result of the recent merger of two separate units.  

2.  In November 1995, he accepted a 5-year Active Guard Reserve 
(AGR), fulltime assignment as the 171 Security Police Squadron 
Commander.  The AGR order clearly shows his duty title as 
“Security Police (SP) Commander.”  However, unbeknownst to him, 
he was placed in the Major (Operations Officer) position.  He 
was unaware that the Lt Col (SP Commander) position was 
reassigned to the Wing Staff and an officer who had no 
affiliation with the SP Squadron was getting the command credit.  

3.  It is his firm belief that the referral OPR is unfairly 
prejudicial and was driven by a conflict in personality with 
his, then, supervisor, Col S, and the personal agenda of others.  
A close examination of his record before and after this OPR will 
show a highly motivated and engaged officer who cares about his 
airmen and clearly understands the complexities of the Security 
Forces career field.  

4.  He wishes to address the golfing incident, because he 
believes this was the key event that triggered Col S's 
determination to build a case against him.  The fact that this 
incident shows up in a Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 
15 Jan 2003, in his removal from command letter dated 
21 Mar 2003, and again in his OPR for that period suggests an 
unreasonable emphasis being placed on this one isolated 
incident.  He would further point out that the manner in which 
Col S describes the incident in her various written statements 
grossly distorts the actual facts.  She portrays his decision 
that day as one of choosing to play golf rather than greeting 
returning airmen; suggesting a total disregard for his airmen 
and a willingness on his part to put his personal pleasures 
before his responsibilities.  This is not true and is a gross 
misstatement of the realities of that day.  The truth is, when 
he and SMSgt B were made aware of the scheduled return time for 
the returning airmen, they were five hours away and involved in 
a munitions inventory.  It was essential that they complete this 
inventory before returning.  The inventory took several hours as 
it involved visiting multiple sites and physically counting 
assigned munitions.  By the time they were finished and departed 
for home, all of the returning airmen had been safely accounted 
for and had departed the base.  Even if they had dropped 
everything, abandoned the munitions inventory, and returned to 
the base at once, they would likely have missed everyone.  
Additionally there were other squadron and wing leaders in place 
to welcome the airmen home.  

5.  Since receiving the referral OPR and moving on to a position 
at the National Guard Bureau he has been very successful and has 
positively affected the lives and careers of countless airmen.  
Several months ago he was honored to have been selected as the 
next Division Chief for ANG Security Forces; an 06 position.  
Unfortunately, his promotion package did not clear AFPC because 
of this referral OPR and he was subsequently moved back to his 
position as Deputy Division Chief.  He respectfully requests 
that the board remove this OPR and all the attached 
documentation from his official record. 

6.  He also requests the removal of OPRs rendered for the 
periods 1 Jan 2003 to 31 Dec 2003 and 1 Jan 2004 to 31 Oct 2004, 
from his official records.  He had insufficient supervision by 
his rater of record; Col M.  His supervisor for the period 
1 Jan 2003 to 21 March 2003 was Col S until he began a 90-day 
TDY at the Air National Guard Readiness Center (ANGRC) which was 
extended to 31 Dec 2003.  His ANGRC supervisor was the Security 
Forces Director. 

In support of his request, the applicant provides his personal 
statement, copies of support documents to include a letter of 
recommendation and witness statements 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 an Air National Guard 
commissioned officer in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5).  

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  NGB/A1PP recommends partial approval.  A1PP states the 
applicant provided a copy of Special Order AC-16, dated 
18 November 1995, indicating he accepted an AGR position with a 
UMD duty title of Security Police Commander.  Numerous OPRs 
indicate duties, responsibilities, mission impact as well as 
other comments reflecting that of a commander.

2.  Although there is no documentation noting the applicant as 
the official commander of the 171 Security Police Squadron, the 
removal of command confirmed he was actively serving as the 
commander and exercising UCMJ authority over the unit along with 
the provisions noted in the Air Force Officer Classification 
Directory.  They recommend granting the applicant credit as 
commander of the 171 Security Police Squadron beginning on 
27 November 1995, the date his AGR orders took affect and 
terminating on 21 March 2003, the date he was removed from 
command.  

3.  On 15 January 2003, the applicant received a letter of 
counseling (LOC) from his supervisor, Colonel S, indicating he 
demonstrated several examples of poor judgment or leadership.  
In March 2003, he was removed from command by Colonel S.  
Subsequently, he received a referral OPR in August 2003 which 
was then filed in his records.  They cannot substantiate there 
was any injustice in his receiving a negative evaluation.  He 
received a LOC prior to his removal from command and referral 
OPR.  Colonel S appears to have identified her concern prior to 
these two actions, therefore, they believe it was within her 
purview to take the actions against the applicant.  

4.  Additionally, the 171 Air Refueling Wing Commander (ARW/CC) 
received the applicant’s rebuttal to the negative evaluation and 
after serious consideration, believed Colonel S’s comments 
should remain as is and stated he did not have the authority to 
arbitrarily change her input, nor would be it appropriate if he 
did.  From a procedural standpoint, the 171 ARW/CC took the 
appropriate steps.  Per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation System, paragraph 1.10.5.2.5, “ANG AGR personnel will 
forward the rebuttal comments and any attachments through their 
full-time chain of command to the Adjutant General.”  They 
contacted the Human Resources Office and confirmed the Adjutant 
General was aware of the referral report in addition to the 
removal from command.  Therefore, they recommend the referral 
OPR not be removed from the applicant’s record.

The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  In his response, the applicant reiterates his contention 
that the referral OPR contains comments that are factually 
inaccurate, inappropriate, and driven by personality.  He 
further states that he firmly believes he was unjustly treated 
during this period and that this mistreatment was allowed to 
happen because of the lack of oversight by the 171 ARW/CC, who 
was on an extended deployment at the time.  He additionally 
believes that when this issue was brought to his attention in 
August of 2003 he failed to do a proper investigation into the 
actual facts surrounding the situation.  His handwritten notes 
on email correspondence suggest that he had questions, but none 
of the individuals who had direct knowledge of the events were 
ever interviewed by the 171 ARW/CC.  It is his belief that the 
171 ARW/CC did not want to appear unsupportive of Col S whom he 
had placed in charge while he was away.  Furthermore, it is his 
belief that the 171 ARW/CC assumed that he would be picked up by 
the Air National Guard Readiness Center, as he was routinely 
receiving very positive updates from his supervisor, Col M, at 
that time.  

2.  He was advised by his supervisors, Col M and Lt Col D, that 
he needed to just keep doing his job and get five good OPRs and 
that would bury the bad one.  This proved to be true as he 
worked his way up to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel.  But, when 
he was selected, some 10 years later, as the Director of 
Security Forces (an 06 position), that misconception caught up 
with him when his package did not pass the colonel's board at 
AFPC and he was forced to step down from that assignment.  In a 
summary of his response, the applicant highlights key 
discrepancies that should be noted in his case.  

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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.  

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice concerning 
the applicant’s requests for his Officer Performance Reports 
(OPRs) rendered for the periods 1 January 2003 through 
31 December 2003 and 1 January 2004 through 31 October 2004 to 
be removed from his records.  We took notice of the applicant's 
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 
we find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly 
reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support 
of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an 
injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of 
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this 
portion of the application.

4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, sufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 
error or an injustice.  With regard to the applicant’s request 
for his record to reflect his time as the Security Forces 
Squadron Commander, we note his OPRs indicate duties, 
responsibilities, and comments reflecting that of a commander in 
spite of his duty title of Security Forces Executive Officer.  
Moreover, the removal of command action confirmed he was 
effectively serving as the commander and exercising Uniform Code 
of Military Justice (UCMJ) authority over the unit.  Based on 
the applicant’s Special Order AC-16, dated 28 November 1995, 
indicating he accepted an AGR position with a UMD duty title of 
Security Police Commander, we find the evidence sufficient to 
resolve this matter in the applicant’s favor.  With regard to 
the applicant’s request to remove his referral OPR, we note the 
applicant’s allegations, that the OPR is factually inaccurate, 
inappropriate, and driven by a personality conflict with his 
rater.  His allegation that he was unjustly treated by the 
acting wing commander, his rater, during this period because of 
the lack of oversight by the wing commander, who was on an 
extended deployment at the time is also noted.  The applicant 
provided statements from senior commissioned and noncommissioned 
officers showing that his quality of performance of duty was 
considerably better than he was given credit for on the referral 
OPR.  Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence setting 
forth the applicant's alleged deficiencies or that he was 
provided midterm feedback to address the deficiencies as 
required by the applicable Air Force Instruction.  Given the 
unequivocal support from senior Air National Guard officers and 
NCOs who were in positions to directly observe his performance, 
and having no basis to question their integrity, we believe a 
reasonable doubt has been established as to whether or not the 
OPR closing 31 December 2002, is a true and accurate assessment 
of his performance.  Additionally, based on the evidence 
provided we believe that a personality conflict may have existed 
between the applicant and his rater that hindered that 
individual's ability to objectively assess the applicant's 
performance.  We note as well, that the referral OPR was written 
by the same rater who perpetuated the incorrect duty title on 
the applicant’s OPRs over an extended period of time but, 
contradictorily, acknowledged his role as commander by taking 
official action to remove him from command.  The applicant 
requested that a duplicate version of the referral OPR be voided 
and removed from his military records.  Subsequent to a review 
of the documents contained in the AFPC Automated Records 
Management (ARMS) Database there is only one official version of 
the applicant’s referral OPR on file in his Military Personnel 
Records (MPR).  In consideration of all of the circumstances of 
this case and in an effort to offset any possibility of an 
injustice, we recommend his records be corrected as indicated 
below.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

	a.  His duty title of "SF Executive Officer" be removed from 
his duty history and changed to "Commander" effective 27 November 
1995 and ending 21 March 2003.

	b.  The Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707A, 
and all corresponding attachments, rendered for the period 
1 January 2002 through 31 December 2002, be, and hereby are, 
declared void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 12 September 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-05444:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 8 Feb 2012, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Mar 2013.