RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03401
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2 September 1994
through 1 September 1995, be declared void and replaced with a
reaccomplished OPR for the same period.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There were three errors/injustices discovered in the OPR in question.
His key duties, tasks and responsibilities were incorrectly stated on
the original OPR; the development program that he worked on was
declassified prior to the writing of the OPR in question but the
details were not included and many pertinent facts and impacts were
left out of the OPR; and, there were several awards not included that
he received during the period which indicate that his performance was
exemplary and above his peers, and as such, not available for
inclusion in future Promotion Recommendation Forms.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits, in addition to various
documentation, a reaccomplished OPR and a letter from the rater with a
1st and 2nd indorsement of concurrence from the additional rater and
reviewer of the contested report
Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
major. Applicant was promoted to the grade of major by the Calendar
Year 1997C (CY97C) (16 Jun 97) Central Major Selection Board.
A similar appeal was submitted under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer
and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied on 16 January 1997.
Applicant’s OPR profile is as follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
10 Oct 92 Meets Standards
10 Oct 93 Meets Standards
1 Sep 94 Meets Standards
* 1 Sep 95 Meets Standards
1 Sep 96 Meets Standards
3 Apr 97 Meets Standards
3 Apr 98 Meets Standards
* Contested OPR
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that Air
Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when
it becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an OPR, it is
important to hear from all the evaluators from the report. In this
instance, the applicant provided a letter from the rater, which the
additional rater and reviewer merely indorsed by choosing “concur” and
striking “nonconcur.” The letter, however, does not explain why the
rater did not incorporate the newly declassified information into his
OPR. By their own admission, the rating chain was aware the
information was no longer classified prior to the OPR’s close out.
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.
They recommend the applicant’s request be denied.
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 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that the Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2
September 1994 through 1 September 1995, should be declared void and
replaced with a reaccomplished OPR for the same period. His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. It
appears, as stated by HQ AFPC/DPPPA, that the rating chain was aware
of the newly declassified information prior to the close out of the
OPR in question and, because evaluation reports receive exhaustive
reviews prior to becoming a matter of record, the OPR could have been
rewritten. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_______________________________________________________________________
_____________________
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 3 September 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603.
Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Nov 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Officer Selection Folder.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Dec 97.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jan 98.
HENRY C. SAUNDERS
Panel Chair
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...
His corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board. As such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Nov 98.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS - IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-00860 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 27 Mar 92 through 26 Mar 93 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report covering the same period. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided statements from the rating chain and documentation relating to his appeal. A complete copy of the...
DPPPA indicated that even though the AFCM (4OLC) citation was not on file for review by the CY98B Major Board, it was present on the OSB and, therefore, was in evidence before the board. According to DPPPA, the decoration citation was filed in the applicant’s OSR on 7 Aug 98. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that during a counseling...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-02000
DPPPA indicated that even though the AFCM (4OLC) citation was not on file for review by the CY98B Major Board, it was present on the OSB and, therefore, was in evidence before the board. According to DPPPA, the decoration citation was filed in the applicant’s OSR on 7 Aug 98. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that during a counseling...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the contested report, a revised version of the OPR, and statements from the rater and additional rater of the report in question. Evaluation reports receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming a matter of record and any report can be rewritten to be more hard hitting, to provide embellishments, or enhance the AFBCMR 97-0298 I ratee's promotion potential but the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record. THE...
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...
2 AFBCMR 97-02342 DPPPA did not concur with applicant's request to rewrite the contested report to include different duty information. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant stated a key issue is whether improper command policy had been issued by his higher headquarters at the time or if his entire direct chain of command and OPR processing personnel misunderstood command policy, thus resulting in an incomplete OPR lacking a definitive ISS endorsement by both the rater and...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00165
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...