ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03586
INDEX NUMBER: 111.01; 131.10
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 19 July 1996 be removed
from his records. If his request is approved, he also requests that
he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C
Lieutenant Colonel Board.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the AFBCMR on 21 July
1998 (Exhibits A through E).
On 22 October 1998, the applicant requested reconsideration of the
Board’s decision and provided an additional statement from the rater
on the contested report (Exhibit F).
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After careful consideration of the additional statement provided by
the rater on the contested report, we are not convinced that the
report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s duty performance
as rendered. The rater stated that he lacked an understanding of the
Air Force evaluation system. However, we note that, even had he been
unfamiliar with the Air Force Officer Evaluation System (OES), the
additional rater - an Air Force officer who had indorsed the
applicant’s two previous reports - concurred with the rater’s
assessment of the applicant’s performance during the period in
question. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive
evidence that the rater was precluded from rendering an unbiased
assessment of the applicant’s duty performance, we are unpersuaded
that a revision of the Board’s earlier determination is warranted.
___________________________________________________________________
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 17 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Letter from Applicant, dated 22 Oct 98, w/atch.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03586A
If his request is approved, he also requests that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful consideration of the additional statement provided by the rater on the contested report, we are not convinced that the report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s duty...
The Board noted the supportive statement from the rater of the contested report; however, the Board did not believe it supported a finding that the contested report was in error or unjust (Exhibits A through E). _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR...
DPPP stated that the letter from the rater supports removal of the contested OPR - it does not support replacing the report with a reaccomplished version. The rater's letter does not substantiate the report, as written, is invalid. After reviewing the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may not have been fairly evaluated by the additional rater/reviewer at the time the report was rendered.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03586
If the additional rater now believes the comments he made are invalid, then why didn’t he provide a statement in support of the applicant’s appeal? The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, applicant restated his contentions concerning his accomplishments and the critical oversight on the part of the evaluators on the contested report. ...
If the additional rater now believes the comments he made are invalid, then why didn’t he provide a statement in support of the applicant’s appeal? The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, applicant restated his contentions concerning his accomplishments and the critical oversight on the part of the evaluators on the contested report. ...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01185 SEP 2 9 1998 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES Applicant requests that (1) her Calendar Year 1998 (CY981 Lieutenant Colonel, Nurse Corp, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be replaced with a new PRF and (2) she be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The appropriate Air...
His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the period 31 May 1996 to 30 May 1997, 31 May 1997 to 30 May 1998, and the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) lieutenant colonel selection board be corrected to reflect his correct duty title and that he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the CY98B, CY99A, CY99B, and CY00A Selection Boards. After his non-selection by the...
On 18 January 1994, the applicant received a second LOR for failure to pay a debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). In regards to the applicant stating that the contested EPRs are inconsistent with previous performance; the EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
Additionally, DPPP states that the applicant’s request for correction was for Section X, Senior Rater, to include the rank and branch of service of the senior rater and in Section IV, line 9 from, “first tour USAF Chaplain” to “second active duty tour.” DPPP recommends denial for an SSB based on the OPR not being available for the CY01A CSB. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, evaluated this application and provided the following information regarding the impact of the two EPRs on the applicant’s promotion consideration: The first time the two EPRs impacted the applicant’s promotion consideration was cycle 94A6 to TSgt (promotions effective Aug 93–Jul 94). We therefore recommend that the contested reports be corrected as indicated...