RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00063
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 4 April 1989
through 3 April 1991, be declared void and removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Upon his discharge from active duty in the Air Force on 30 June 1989, he
became an Individual Mobility Augmentee (IMA) in the Air Force Reserve.
After approximately one year of IMA service, he moved from the Wright
Patterson area due to relocation with his civilian employment. At that
time, he called the IMA office at Wright Patterson and spoke with Ms. T---
A---, the IMA coordinator, to tell her he had moved. He also gave her his
new address and telephone number, and asked to be placed in the inactive
Reserve. She stated that would not be a problem, to send her a letter
stating his requests and the rest would be taken care of. He sent the
letter and never thought anymore about it assuming the proper contacts had
been made. He never received any correspondence inquiring as to his
intention to complete more IMA duty or asking why he had not been at Wright
Patterson to do more IMA time, so he thought he was in the inactive
Reserve. Obviously, from the statements on the contested OPR, people in
his rating chain were never notified of his switch to inactive Reserve
status. At no time during the period he was in the Reserve was he ever
informed an OPR had been written covering his Reserve time. He believes
this OPR was written without full knowledge of the facts and circumstances.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the rater on
the contested OPR stating that when he wrote the contested OPR, he was
unaware the applicant was no longer an IMA and had, in fact, gone into the
inactive Reserve. It was not
communicated to him that approximately eight months before writing the
contested report he had properly notified the IMA office of his change in
status and would no longer be serving as an IMA. After leaving active duty
in July 1989, the applicant performed his IMA duties for nearly one year.
During that period he was an outstanding officer and pharmacist, but
unfortunately, what was written in the contested OPR did not truly reflect
his impeccable performance since he was not told of the applicant’s change
of status.
Applicant also submits a statement from the officer in charge of the
Outpatient Pharmacy at Wright Patterson AFB.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned in the grade of second lieutenant, Reserve
of the Air Force (ResAF), Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) on 10 April 1986,
and entered on extended active duty (EAD) on 27 June 1986.
On 30 June 1989, he was released from active duty and transferred to the
United States Air Force Reserves (USAFR). On 9 June 1994, he was honorably
discharged from all appointments in the United States Air Force in the
grade of captain.
On 6 June 1995, applicant was commissioned in the grade of captain, ResAF,
BSC, and entered EAD on 1 July 1995.
Applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of major
by the CY99A Selection Board.
OPR profile since 1989, follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
03 Apr 89 Meets Standards
* 03 Apr 91 Meets Standards
No Report Available for period 4 Apr 91 - 30 Jun 95
06 Jun 96 Meets Standards
02 May 97 Meets Standards
02 May 98 Meets Standards
20 Feb 98 Education/Training Report
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, reviewed the
application and states that the applicant provided no evidence he requested
a change in status in August 1990. If a proper change in status had been
executed, he would have been transferred to the Obligated Reserve Section
and a report would not have been required according to AFR 36-10, para
38b(1), the governing regulation at the time. Without some evidence that
the applicant requested a change in status or that the Air Force failed to
act on that request, they can only assume that he simply stopped
participating. As of the close out date of the report in question, the
applicant met all the requirements for a performance report to be rendered
to include participation points. They recommend denial of applicant's
request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he is not
arguing whether the report should have been generated; to him that is a
moot point. He is challenging the content of the report. He has offered
into evidence a letter from the person who wrote the report stating this.
He believes this is the one person who can best state whether the report is
accurate and factual. Obviously, according to his letter, he believes a
mistake was made. He did exactly what the IMA coordinator told him to do,
that being to send her a letter with his change in status request. He
relied on the Air Force’s functional area expert for advice in handling his
request. Despite this, no one ever executed the proper change. When he
contacted Ms. A--- over a year ago, she told him she had no recollection
regarding his situation. He does not have a copy of the letter he sent
almost nine years ago. Between that time and now, he has separated from
the Air Force, received his Honorable Discharge, and moved forward. Once
separated, the last thing he would think of keeping is a copy of a letter
he sent several years previously. Certainly, no reasonably prudent person
could be expected to keep such a letter either.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, we are persuaded that the contested report is not an accurate
assessment of applicant’s performance. We note that the applicant states
he contacted the Individual Mobility Augmentee (IMA) coordinator to inform
her of his move and to request that he be placed in the inactive Reserve.
In addition we note the statement from the rater on the contested report
indicating that when he wrote the report he was unaware that the applicant
was no longer an IMA and had gone into the inactive Reserve. The rater
also states that the contested OPR did not truly reflect the applicant’s
impeccable performance since he was not told of the change in status. In
view of the above and to offset any possibility of an injustice to the
applicant, we recommend the contested report be declared void and removed
from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 4 April 1989
through 3 April 1991, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 10 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal, IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DP, dated 23 Feb 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Mar 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, dated 12 Apr 99.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL, IV
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-00063
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to , be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 4 April 1989
through 3 April 1991, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his
records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02317
The applicant contends the bias treatment he received on the contested reports carried over to the rating on his OPR closing 31 Aug 02, which he filed the IG complaint over. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to remove three contested OPRs from his record, to consider him for promotion to the grade of major by special selection board, and reinstatement to active duty. In removing the three...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00890
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response and additional documentary evidence which are attached...
It was never referred to him nor were its contents made known to him until after it was a matter of record. However, they recommend the report be corrected by transferring its content to an AF Form 707B. Regarding applicant’s contention that he was never given a copy of the report, we note that, unless it is a referral report, the ratee will not be shown the prepared Air Force forms until the report is filed in the UPRG.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Article 15 is invalid because it was imposed after the 2-year statute of limitations for such; the contested OPR is also invalid because he did not work for the rater for the required 120-days of supervision; and the discharge should be upgraded due to the inconsistencies under which it was given. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory and provides a “Late Decoration Recommendation” letter from his former commander that he recently found stored in his files and which he wants considered in his request for SSB consideration for his BPZ board [CY95A]. The former commander indicates that, after his departure, “the...
Since the IG investigation sustained the applicant's allegation that the contested report was written as an act of reprisal, equity dictates that the report be declared void and the applicant be reconsidered for promotion to major by an SSB for all boards that the report was a matter of record. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Boards for the Calendar Years 1996C and 1997E Central Major Boards; and that, if selected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01815
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01815 (CASE 6) XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Feb 01 through 1 Feb 02 be declared void and removed from his records, and the attached reaccomplished OPR be accepted...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01731
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-01731 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 27 March 2001, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) P0401A and any associated memoranda regarding the referral period be removed from his records and his corrected record be...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01622
All LEAD officers display the current PAS of assignment (which is active duty), the file from which the data is obtained (“BA” meaning active duty officer), an identifier showing “AGR” (also indicating full-time active duty), and 239 active duty training points in the current retirement/retention (R/R) year (“PT SINCE: 13 Feb 01” at the bottom of the OSB). In addition, after reviewing the applicant’s OPRs, we noted that the assignment history section of the contested OSB contains...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Master Records Management Division, ARPC/DSMO, reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating that, although the applicant has provided favorable communications from individuals not in his rating chain for the OPRs in question, they are not convinced by the evidence provided, that these reports do not accurately portray applicant's duty performance and should be removed from his record. If the Board disagrees, they recommended removal of the...