RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00787
		        COUNSEL:
		        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 11 Oct 12, 
be declared void and removed from her records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPR should be removed because it violates AFI 36-
2406, Officer and Enlisted Performance Evaluation Systems:

	1.1 (Purpose) to provide meaningful feedback to individuals 
on what is expected of them, advice on how well they are meeting 
those expectations, and advice on how to better meet those 
expectations.  

	1.12.6. (Performance Outside the Reporting) period);

	1.12.7.4.2 (Disciplinary Actions) (Derogatory Information and 
Disciplinary Actions) must be reasonably specific, clearly 
outlining the event and/or behavior.  Comments such as “conduct 
unbecoming” or “an error in judgment led to an off-duty 
incident” are too vague and open the door for appeals.

	1.12.7.4.3. The ratee must be advised specifically why he 
or she is considered substandard in order to respond 
appropriately.

	1.12.7.4.4. An evaluation should not simply contain the 
comment “…MSgt S. received an Article 15 during this period.”  
Instead, the underlying conduct should be specifically cited 
with the resulting action included, such as: “During this 
reporting period, Lt J. sexually harassed a female subordinate 
for which he received an Article 15,” or MSgt S. drove while 
under the influence, for which he received an Article 15.”

	2.11.4 (End-of-Reporting Period Feedback) Raters should 
review the evaluation content with the ratee and discuss why the 
ratings were given, and what can be done to improve performance 
during the upcoming evaluation period.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
Performance Feedback Worksheets, Memorandum for Record, Referral 
OPR, response to the referral OPR, and the Judge Advocate 
General’s (JAG) response to the referral OPR.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Florida Air National 
Guard (MD ANG) in the grade of major.

The applicant’s OPR closing 1 Oct 12 includes comments that make 
it a referral report.  In Section IV, Rater Overall Assessment, 
it states “Maj P. was relieved from supervisor responsibility 
for failing to foster team work and maintain composure,” and in 
Section V, Additional Rater Overall Assessment, it states “Maj 
P. was removed as OIC of the Weather Supt team for exhibiting 
poor leadership and judgment skills.”

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

Period Ending	Performance Factor

*	1 Oct 12	Does Not Meet Standards
	1 Oct 11	Meets Standards
	1 Oct 10	Meets Standards
	1 Oct 09	Meets Standards
	1 Oct 07	Meets Standards
	1 Oct 06	Meets Standards
	1 Oct 05	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:

ANG/A1PP recommends denial.  A1PP states that initially, the 
lack of detail in the statements noted on the applicant’s OPR 
substantiated her claim that the OPR does not comply with AFI 
36-2406.  However, after contacting the applicant’s unit, there 
is extensive documentation that specifically identifies a 
continued behavior deficiency and several attempts to correct 
her behavior from her leadership including her immediate 
supervisor.  

On 13 Dec 11, the applicant received her initial Performance 
Feedback Worksheet (PFW) from her supervisor.  The feedback 
noted areas of needed improvement in sections 2 and 5.  
According to this feedback, the applicant needed to improve on 
fostering teamwork amongst her team.  Section 5 of the same 
worksheet indicated that she needed to maintain composure under 
stressful situations.  On 15 Mar 12, the applicant was suspended 
from her supervisory duties as the Officer in Charge (OIC) of 
the Weather Specialty Team (WST) via a Memorandum for Record 
(MFR).  The applicant’s supervisor provided another PFW 
indicating that she was not meeting his expectations identified 
in section 2, noting her deficiencies leading her subordinates 
and working well with others.  Additionally, section 5, 
emphasized that she exercised poor judgment which led to her 
removal as a supervisor.

NGB/A1 contacted the applicant’s unit and discovered substantial 
information documenting her leadership and supervisory 
challenges, which began years before the referral OPR was 
processed.  Numerous MFRs were received from personnel who 
either worked for the applicant or witnessed her interactions 
with her subordinates.  The applicant was provided formal 
feedbacks dating back to 2010 addressing the need to correct her 
leadership and supervisory techniques.  Despite several attempts 
to rectify the issue, she was given another formal feedback on 8 
May 12 and noted she had not improved in her leadership and 
judgment, and was no longer meeting her supervisor’s standards.  
Prior to this feedback, her leadership attempted numerous times 
to correct her behavior, but decided to pursue a referral OPR as 
her conduct was unbecoming of a field grade officer.

The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the evaluation, the applicant’s counsel states 
that the applicant has an outstanding record in the ANG as 
evidenced by her OPRs from Oct 06 through Oct 11.  The OPR 
closing 2 Oct 11, showed stellar performance with a closing 
comment that she should be challenged in new leadership roles.  
In Dec 11, shortly after this report, she had a feedback session, 
clearly stating that she knows her job extremely well, however, 
also stating she needed to foster teamwork.  Improvement was 
noted but it was stated that work was needed to maintain 
composure under stressful situations.

The next action was a MFR, dated 15 Mar 12, which removed her 
from her supervisory role, as the OIC, Weather Support Team 
(WST).  There were no verbal counselings, performance feedback 
sessions, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or Article 
15 actions, Letters of Reprimand, Admonishments or counselings of 
any kind.

The following feedback session on May 12, reiterated the same 
statements of poor judgment and decisions, with no improvement 
and again this document did not state specifics or details 
concerning these allegations, nor did it give her any feedback as 
to how she could improve.  Further, she had been removed as a 
supervisor so it was not possible to make improvements as a 
supervisor.

The actions against the applicant are troubling because of the 
lack of examples, details and specifics of problems with 
teamwork, composure, leadership and judgment.

The JAG representing her in response to the referral OPR stated 
that the purpose of the Officer Evaluation system is to provide 
meaningful feedback to individuals on what is expected of them, 
advice on how well they are meeting those expectations and advice 
on how to better meet those expectations.  Performance feedback 
is designed to provide a realistic assessment of performance, 
career standing, future potential and actions required to assist 
the ratee in reaching the next level of professional development.  
This was not accomplished and the applicant was summarily 
dismissed without mentoring or relevant feedback.

The NGB/AIPP memorandum states that there was substantial 
information which began years before the referral OPR.  However, 
none of this documentation was ever presented to the applicant.  
No examples were ever presented to her for improvement, and no 
documentation was presented for her to review and rebut.  This 
“documentation” presumably was obtained from selected individuals 
who did not like her.  

The applicant’s counsel provides letters from individuals that 
worked with the applicant that reflect an officer and supervisor 
that was fair and impartial, one who assured the workload was 
shared equally.

There is an appearance of sexual bias against the applicant as a 
supervisor and favoritism of her subordinates by her commander.  
This is the crux of the situation where it appears young troops 
were permitted to go outside the chain of command and complain of 
treatment when they did not like a decision.  

When the applicant was removed as a supervisor, Capt H. became 
her supervisor.  Capt H. had a relationship with an enlisted 
member, and this relationship was reported to the applicant, who 
took the information to her superiors.  At which point, she was 
told she had made a huge mistake by up-channeling this affair, 
and things went downhill after this incident.   

Senior management created a hostile work environment when they 
labeled the issues in the WST as “women’s issues.”  In Mar 12, 
senior management appointed a female lieutenant colonel to handle 
personnel issues, before the applicant was relived of her duties.  
It appears an atmosphere prevailed for the female subordinate 
officers and Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) to complain outside 
their chain, whenever the applicant would attempt discipline, 
counseling, work scheduling, etc.  This may or may not be a 
sexual bias case, but it is an example of poor leadership by the 
applicant’s supervisors in not backing up her decisions because 
they either did not like her or did not like her by-the-book 
style.  

In summary, the applicant was removed from the WST for a referral 
OPR.  However, this referral OPR is unjustified and 
unsupportable.  It should also be noted that the concurrence to 
the NGB/A1PS advisory is signed by the same individual who 
threatened the applicant when she reported the fraternization by 
a subordinate.  This is certainly a conflict.

The counsel’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting 
corrective action.  The applicant requests that her OPR closing 
1 Oct 12 be declared void and removed from her records.  She 
contends that her OPR was not prepared in accordance with AFI  
36-2406.  We note that initially, NGB/A1PP believed that the 
lack of details in the statements noted on the applicant’s OPR 
substantiated her claim that the OPR did not comply with AFI 36-
2406.  However, after the applicant’s unit advised A1PP that 
documentation existed on her behavior deficiency and the 
attempts to correct her behavior, A1PP reversed its opinion.  In 
our review of the applicant’s records we did not find any 
evidence of the documentation.  Moreover, AFI 36-2406 clearly 
states comments on referral reports must be reasonably specific, 
clearly outlining the event and/or behavior.  Therefore, it is 
our opinion the contested OPR lacks specificity and is not in 
compliance with the AFI.  In order to preclude any possibility 
of an injustice, her records should be corrected as indicated 
below.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the AF 
Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col) rendered for 
the period 2 Oct 11 through 1 Oct 12, be declared void and 
removed from her records.

________________________________________________________________


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00787 in Executive Session on 21 Jan 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 13, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atch.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 13.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Aug 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair