RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00116
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 Sep  96
through 1 Jul 97 be declared void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received favorable comments from the rater of the contested  report
prior to the close out of the OPR; he did  not  receive  a  clear  job
description by his commander for duties to be performed;  he  did  not
receive a feedback session during the rating period;  the  commander’s
remarks are inconsistent and  inaccurate  with  his  performance;  the
evaluation   is   inconsistent   with    documented    events;    duty
accomplishments are not  included  on  the  OPR;  and,  there  was  no
personal contact with the rater from Jan 97 until Jul 97 with only two
brief phone calls.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently a Reservist (captain) not serving on active
duty.

Applicant’s OPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             19 Dec 91               Meets Standards
             19 Dec 92               Meets Standards
             19 Dec 93               Meets Standards
             19 Dec 94               Meets Standards
             19 Dec 95               Meets Standards
             31 Aug 96               Meets Standards
           *  1 Jul 97               Meets Standards
             30 Apr 98               Meets Standards

*     Contested Report.

A similar application was  submitted  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Evaluation Reports.  On 29 Sep 98, the  Evaluation  Report
Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the applicant’s documentation
and denied his request.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application
and indicated that  evaluation  reports  are  considered  accurate  as
written unless substantial evidence to the contrary is  provided.   As
such, they receive exhaustive reviews prior to becoming  a  matter  of
record.  Any report can be rewritten  to  be  more  hard  hitting,  to
provide embellishments, or enhance the ratee’s promotion potential but
the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter  of  record.
The appeals process does not exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance
chances for  promotion  and  it  appears  this  is  exactly  what  the
applicant is attempting to do—recreate history.  The burden  of  proof
is on the applicant and he has not substantiated the contested  report
was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators  based  on  knowledge
available at the time.  As such, DPPPA is not convinced the  contested
report is not accurate as written and does not support the request  to
void the contested OPR.  DPPPA further stated that statements from the
evaluators of the contested period are conspicuously absent.  In order
to successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it  is
important to hear from the evaluators—not necessarily for support, but
at  least  for  clarification/explanation.   The  applicant  has   not
provided any such documentation.  Without benefit of these statements,
DPPPA can only conclude the OPR is accurate as written.  Based on  the
evidence provided, they recommend denial.

A complete 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  applicant  on
15 Feb 99 for review and response.  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.   We  have  thoroughly
reviewed the applicant’s contentions and the statements provided  from
his former commander  and  executive  officer;  however,  we  find  no
persuasive evidence showing that the  applicant  was  rated  unfairly,
that the  OPR  remarks  were  inconsistent  and  inaccurate  with  his
performance and documented events, that he  had  no  personal  contact
with his commander as he asserts, or that the  rater’s  assessment  of
his performance was personal in nature.  In our opinion, the rater was
responsible for  assessing  the  applicant’s  performance  during  the
period in question and is presumed to  have  rendered  his  evaluation
based on his observation of the applicant’s performance and  there  is
nothing in the evidence provided to indicate that the rater was unable
to render an independent assessment of  the  applicant’s  performance.
While the applicant provided statements from individuals  outside  the
rating chain, we are not persuaded that these statements  substantiate
his allegation that the contested report was incorrect  or  unfair  at
the time it was written.  These  individuals  were  not  charged  with
assessing the applicant’s performance  during  the  contested  period.
Furthermore, we note the applicant’s assertion that he did not receive
performance feedback but the OPR reflects that he did.  However, other
than his own assertions, he provided no evidence to  substantiate  his
claim.  Additionally, it is presumed that evaluators assess a  ratee’s
performance  honestly  and  to  the  best  of  their  ability  and  in
accordance with regulation, a rater’s failure to conduct  required  or
requested feedback will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent OPR.
 The applicant has  provided  no  supporting  documentation  from  the
rating chain indicating the report was not an accurate  assessment  as
rendered.  It appears that the report rendered was justified based  on
applicant’s overall performance.  In reviewing  the  entire  case,  we
find that he has not sustained his burden to demonstrate the existence
of error or injustice.  In view of the above and  in  the  absence  of
substantial evidence that the contested report is in error or  unjust,
we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend  favorable  action
on this appeal.

________________________________________________________________

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 21 September 1999, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
                Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 28 Jan 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 99.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair