Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03401
Original file (BC-1997-03401.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703401

    Original file (9703401.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1999 | 9802897

    Original file (9802897.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1997 | 9700860

    Original file (9700860.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9802000

    Original file (9802000.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1998-02000.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 9702981

    Original file (9702981.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803136

    Original file (9803136.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702342

    Original file (9702342.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800521

    Original file (9800521.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-1998-00165.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...