7
: 1 ,
A I R F O F k E BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD O F PROCEEDINGS
JWL 1 4 1998
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 9 7 - 0 3 1 7 6
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that his now voided Officer Performance Report
(OPR) closing 11 April 1 9 9 6 be reaccomplished.
Applicant's
submission is at Exhibit A.
F
Applicant's request to remove the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and
references to the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) from both
his promotion folder and his command selection folder were
administratively accomplished by the appropriate Air Force
' office. (Exhibit C ) .
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit D). In order for a report to be
reaccomplished, it is up to the applicant to garner the support
of the original evaluation chain and request that they
reaccomplish the report. Once this is done, the applicant can
then request that the reaccomplished version be added to the QSR.
Since the applicant has not provided the reaccomplished OPR, this
request is without basis. The advisory opinion was forwarded to
the applicant for review and response (Exhibit E). As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
After careful consideration of applicant's request and the
available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Mr. Frederick R.
Beaman 111, and Mr. Steven A. Shaw considered this application on
7 July 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Letter to Applicant
D. Advisory Opinion
E. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER
RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE T E X A S
.
US. AIR FORCE
MEMORANDUMFOR AFBCMR
. FROM: HQ AFPCIDPPPA
550 C Street West, Suite 8
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4710
30 DEC 97
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7
Reauested Actioa The applicant requests removal of the letter of reprimand (LOR) and any
references to the mfhvorable information file (uni) fhm both his officer selection record (OSR)
and his command selection record. In addition, he requests reaccomplishment of his now voided
11 Apr 96 officer performance report (OPR). We will address the OPR issue only.
Basis for Reauest, See below.
Recommendation. Deny due to lack of merit.
Facts and Comments.
a. The application is timely fled. A similar application was submitted under AFI
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The Evaluation Report Appeal
Board (ERAB) approved the applicant’s request to void the report, and an AF Fonn 77 was filed
in place of the voided report. In the applicant’s AFR 36-2401 appeal., he requested that the OPR
either be reaccomplished, or in the went that it could not, that it be voided in its entire$y.
b. The governing directive is AFR 36-10, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88.
c. Promotion nonselection is not an issue.
4. The now voided OPR was or@dly a referral report, and it has since been voided
fkom the applicant’s records. In addition, the letter from HQ AFPUDPSFC, dated $Dee 97,
idormed the applicant the LOR and UIF have now been destroyed.
e. The applicant is now requesting that the OPR be reaccomplished. However, he has
not provided a reaccomplished version of the report. In order for a report to be reammplished,
it is up to the applicant to gamer the support of the original evaluation chain and request that they
reaccomplish the report. Once this is done, the applicant can then request that the reaccomplished
version be added to the OSR. Since the applicant has not provided the reaccomptished OPR, this
request is without_basis.
._
Summay. We recommend denial due to lack of merit. The applicant’s request has no
basis.
N w h %
MARIANNE
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch
Directorate of Pen Program I@t
STERLING, Lt Col
SAF
!
I
Applicant alleges that his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 20 February 1997, was submitted on the wrong form and believes that this error had a negative influence on the CY97C lieutenant colonel selection board members. However, after reviewing applicant's comments to the Air Force evaluation, we are persuaded that his corrected record should be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C board. application.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from the rater, statement from the CAP Administrator, the contested report, reaccomplished report, and the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board application, w/atchs. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that in comparing the contested OPR with the previous 13 February 1995,...
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated either his OPR contained material errors, or he was placed at a disadvantage at the promotion board because the OPRs of other individuals contained prohibited comments. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a...
In regard to applicant's request that a PME statement be added on the OPR, closing 26 April 1996, AFPC/DPPPA, states that Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) (including the promotion recommendation form, OPRs, officer effectiveness reports, training reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC 2008 00538
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a statement from her counsel; and, copies of her LOR, response to the LOR, Referral OPR, request to the Evaluation Review Appeals Board (ERAB) to remove the contested report, work schedules, memorandum for record, Performance Feedback, character references, ERAB decision, Promotion Recommendation, Officer Performance Reports, Education/Training Report, award and decoration documents, and articles on Nursing. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is...
AFPC/DPPPA asserts the applicant’s OPR was accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time the report was rendered and are strongly opposed to replacing it with a new version. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 January 1998 for review and response within 30...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03401
AFPC/DPPPA asserts the applicant’s OPR was accomplished in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time the report was rendered and are strongly opposed to replacing it with a new version. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 January 1998 for review and response within 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01078
His EPR rendered for the period 6 Mar 01 through 30 Sep 01 be declared void and removed from his records; and, that the report be reaccomplished with the evaluation rewritten and considered for a senior-level indorsement by the wing commander. This reviewing commander was also the same commander to whom the appeal of the Article 15 action would have been made. In fact, the applicant provided a statement from his commander indicating that he did not receive a senior rater indorsement on his...
97-00286 A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or make any other significant change, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9635. The applicant requests correction of the 14 Mar 95...