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
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 | 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. ...
As an alternative, that his record, with the corrected PRF, indicating the proper duty title be directed to meet a Special Selection Board (SSB). On 18 Jun 97, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was convinced by the applicant’s documentation that the duty title needed correction but did not grant promotion reconsideration by the CY96C board since their “authority to grant SSB consideration is restricted to cases in which the evidence clearly warrants promotion...
The applicant has failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain on the contested OER. 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 as for clarification, his request is for the removal of an OER rendered on 14 April 1987 not 14 April 1997. The merits of which seek to overturn the one document the Air Force continues to have on file - the...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and indicated that promotion nonselection is not an issue. In ~yinstance, the applicant failed to provide a letter of support from the rater of the contested report. But the time to do that is before the report becomes a matter of record.
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 Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and indicated that while the applicant contends that he did not receive his two feedbacks during the contested period, they note that the rater indicates in Section V (Rater’s Comments) that feedbacks were conducted on 25 Sep 96 and 6 Mar 97. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record...
DPPPA notes the applicant provided several copies of performance feedbacks given since she came on active duty. In addition to the two performance feedbacks noted on the contested EPR, DPPPA notes the rater also completed a PFW on 19 May 93 in which he complimented her on her initiatives to keep up with her training. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are persuaded that the contested report is not an accurate reflection of applicant’s performance during the time period...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00355
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...