AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

0c-r 2 7 1999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET "MBER:  95-01723 

COUNSEL: 1 

HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THA T: 
The Officer Performance Report  (OPR) closing 25 February 1994 be 
removed  from  her  records.  In  the  alternative, the  report  be 
amended  by  upgrading  the  rating  in  Section  V,  Performance 
Factors,  Item  2,  Leadership  Skills,  to  Meets  Standards,  and, 
deleting  the  comments  by  the  rater  in  Section  VI  concerning 
leadership  problems  and  all  sub-bullets,  and  the  comment 
referencing  nonresponsiveness  to  current  Air  Force  nurse 
requirements. 
Her corrected record be  considered by  a Special Selection Board 
(SSB) for  promotion  by  the  CY  1994A  Central  Major  Selection 
Board, which convened on 22 August 1994. 

APPLICANT CO NTENDS THA T: 
The OPR is invalid because it did not accurately reflect her duty 
performance during  the contested rating period.  The denial  of 
her  appeal  of  the  contested  repor't  by  the  Evaluation  Report 
Appeal  Board  (ERAB) was  arbitrary.  The  ERAB  found  that  the 
opinion letters provided in support of the appeal were no help in 
assessing her  leadership abilities because  the rater's  judgment 
was superior.  However, she had provided more  than just opinion 
as to what the situation in her squadron was at that time.  The 
statements were based on firsthand knowledge and observation of 
what transpired during the period of the contested report.  These 
statements attest to her effectiveness as a leader.  In addition, 
the  record  of  the  recruiting production  also provides  evidence 
that her leadership skills were more than adequate. 
A  further indication that  the E m ' s  decision was  arbitrary  is 
that  they  failed to contemplate her  entire  argument.  She  had 
contended  that  the  contested  report  was  based  on  a  minor, 
isolated  incident.  The  ERAE3  focused  only  on  the  leadership 
aspect of her argument.  The isolated incident refers to a charge 
that she did not control a renegade noncommissioned officer (NCO) 
(her NCOIC).  Yet,  she  ensured  that  the  individual  received 
nonjudicial punishment and allowed the chain of command to handle 
the situation, given the nature of his offenses. 

The entire rating period was characterized by what  occurred in 
the last three months of the period; namely, the removal of  the 
NCO and the shift of focus in recruiting strategies.  She had no 
control over either of these issues. 
The  ERAB  also  failed  to  consider her  argument  that  Air  Force 
regulations were not followed where she was not given performance 
counseling.  In  her  original  appeal,  she  documented  that  her 
rater had failed to provide the performance feedback required by 
the governing regulation.  When agencies failed to follow their 
own regulation, an injustice is created. 

The contested report  is an aberration in her  file.  The entire 
story of what occurred between her and her rater was  not known to 
the other members  of  her  rating  chain.  Had  the  senior raters 
been  aware  of  the  true  situation,  another  OPR  may  have  been 
prepared. 
Finally, the OPR was not based on her performance but was given 
as  retaliation  for  her  desire  to  file  a  complaint  with  the 
Inspector  General  (IG) because  of  the  improper  handling  and 
mismanaged  investigation  of  her  report  of  problems  with  her 
NCOIC.  She has provided  a detailed description of  events that 
led to her rater's illegal treatment. 
The contested OPR had a substantial impact on her opportunity for 
promotion.  In addition to the effect its presence in her record 
had  on the  assessment of  her  record by  the  selection board  in 
question,  it  also  had  an  effect  on  the  perceptions  of  her 
superiors at  the time she was to be  considered by  the CY 1994A 
board  since  she  had  only  recently been  assigned  to  her  then- 
current  position  and  was  new  to  the  command.  Therefore, her 
superiors were unable to fairly assess her skills to overcome the 
damaging OPR. 
In  support  of  her  appeal, the  applicant  provided  a  brief  by 
counsel elaborating on her contentions, a copy of  the contested 
report, copies of documents associated with her appeal under AFI 
36-2401, including copies of  her Promotion Recommendation Forms 
(PRFs) considered by  the CY 1993A, CY  1994A and CY  1996A major 
selection  boards,  several  supportive  statements,  and  other 
documents  associated  with  her  duty  performance  and  the  issues 
cited in her contentions.  Applicant's  complete submission is at 
Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
indicates that  the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, 
Reserve  of  the Air  Force, on  4  June  1984  and  was  voluntarily 
ordered to extended active duty, effective 7 January 1985.  She 
has  been  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  captain, 

2 

95- 01723 

effective and with a date of rank of  2 0   September 1988.  During 
the  period  22  June  1992  through  30  March  1994,  the  applicant 
performed  duties  as  a  'Chief,  Nurse  Recruiting  Branch."  The 
following  is  a  resume  of  her  OPR  ratings  subsequent  to  her 
promotion to the grade of captain. 

OVERALL EVALUATION 
Training Report  (TR) 
Meets Standards (MS) 

Does Not Meet Standards 

PERIOD ENDING 

7 Oct 
1 Jul 
1 Jul 
1 Jul 
17 May 
17 May 
*  25  Feb 
25  Feb 
1 Sep 
9  Jan 

1 9 8 8  
1 9 8 9  
1 9 9 0  
1 9 9 1  
1992 
1993 
1994 
1 9 9 5  
1 9 9 5  
1 9 9 6  

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

MS 
MS 
MS 

# 
NOTE:  *  -  Contested report.  A similar appeal by the applicant 
was denied by the ERAB on 2 1  December 1994.  In 
addition, this was the top report on file at the CY 
1994A Central Major Selection Board which convened on 
22  August 1 9 9 4 .  

#  -  Top report on file at the CY 1996  Central Major 
Selection Board, which convened on 4 March 1 9 9 6 .  

Based on her nonselections for promotion to the grade of major, 
the  applicant  had  an  established  date  of  separation  of 
30  November 1 9 9 6 .  
A copy of the Inspector General  (IG) investigation is appended at 
Exhibit C. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application 
and recommended denial.  DPPPA indicated that Air Force policy is 
that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes 
a  matter  of  record. 
It  takes  substantial  evidence  to  the 
contrary  to  have  a  report  changed  or  voided.  To  effectively 
challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from all the evaluators 
the  contested  report,  not  only  for  support,  but  also  for 
DPPPA  noted  that  the  applicant 
clarification/explanation. 
provided no support from her rating chain. 
DPPPA  is  not  convinced  that  the  rater  failed  to  assess  her 
performance  accurately. 
She  provided  no  evidence  showing 
impropriety or unjust treatment on the part of her rating chain. 
She submits a transmission which states she is aware some of her 
work is overdue.  DPPPA finds this is one of the characteristics 

3 

95- 01723 

mentioned  in  the  referral  report. 
DPPPA  noted  the  details 
concerning  her  performance  supplied  by  the  applicant  but 
indicated that  this  information does not  strengthen her appeal 
without  support of her rating chain.  In DPPPA's  opinion, vague 
duty related evidence and statistics regarding recruiting numbers 
is  not  convincing  evidence  that  the  report  is  invalid. 
In 
addition, DPPPA  does  not  believe  the  letters  from outside her 
rating chain are relevant to the applicant's  case.  The authors 
of the letters are entitled to their opinion, but  DPPPA has no 
reason to believe that their judgment is superior to that of the 
Finally,  DPPPA  is  not 
evaluators  of  the  contested  report. 
convinced by the evidence provided that the OPR may be a reprisal 
for  statements  she  made  during  an  Article  15  investigation 
involving her NCOIC  (Exhibit D). 

~ 

~~ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Counsel  reviewed  the  advisory  opinion  and  reiterated  the 
applicant's initial contentions.  Counsel indicated that the Air 
Staff's  reliance on the  fact  that  the applicant  did not  submit 
statements  from  her  rating  chain  is  misplaced.  There  is  no 
requirement  in  the  regulation/instructions  governing  office 
evaluations  to  submit  letters  or  statements  from  the  rating 
chain.  In  fact, when  such  letters  are  submitted, denial  is 
recommended  based  on  the  fact  that  the  evaluators  now  cannot 
change the evaluation, as it was presumed accurate when prepared. 
Given such arguments, the applicant is in a  \\no win''  situation. 
Counsel  stated  that  statements from the rating  chain would  not 
provide  the  Board  with  more  information  than  that  already 
submitted.  Counsel stated that the Air Force has not adequately 
addressed  the  applicant's  allegations  concerning  the  lack  of 
performance  feedback  and  that  the  evaluation  was  based  on  a 
minor, isolated incident.  The Air Force speaks in generalities 
and  has  failed  to  acknowledge that  the applicant performed her 
duties  as  all  others  similarly  situated.  The  "duty  related 
evidence  and  statistics"  establish the  opposite of  her  rater's 
suggestion concerning her duty performance.  In fact, the rater 
continues to be under investigation for his actions dealing with 
recruiting  command.  Notwithstanding  the Air  Force's  position, 
counsel believes the evidence clearly establishes the arbitrary 
nature of the evaluation.  The applicant's  response is attached 
to Counsel's rebuttal at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case.  However, in our opinion, these documents do 
not  support  a  finding  that  the  evaluators,  tasked  with  the 
responsibility  of  assessing  the  applicant's  performance,  were 
unable  to  render unbiased  evaluations of  her  duty performance. 
We are unpersuaded by the evidence presented that the evaluations 
were based on factors other than the applicant's duty performance 
and demonstrated promotion potential during the rating period in 
question.  We  believe  it  should be  noted that  the  same  issues 
raised  in  this  application were  investigated  by  the  Inspector 
General  (IG) and it was determined that her complaints concerning 
reprisal were unsubstantiated.  In addition, the IG investigation 
referenced the applicant having  some leadership problems which, 
we believe, validates the assessment of her rating chain during 
the period  under review.  Even though the  IG  substantiated the 
applicant did not receive formal  (written) performance feedback, 
the  investigation did  indicate  that  the  applicant was provided 
informal  (verbal) feedback.  Inasmuch as the governing regulation 
stipulates a rater's  failure to conduct a required or requested 
feedback session will  not  invalidate the performance report, we 
do  not  find  the  rater's  failure  to  conduct  a  formal  feedback 
session a sufficient basis to invalidate the report.  In view of 
the foregoing, and 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(s) 
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  probable  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 15 September 1998, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Mrs. Barbara A .   Westgate, Panel Chair 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member 

5 

95- 01723 

.. .. 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 May 95, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  DOD IG Report of Inquiry, withdrawn. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 27 Dec 95, w/atch. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Jan 96. 
Exhibit F.  Letter from counsel, dated 10 Mar 96, w/atch. 

BARBARA  A.  WEST GATE^ 

Panel Chair 

. .  

6 

95- 01723