RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01057
INDEX CODE: 111.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2
July 1996 through 4 July 1998, be declared void and removed from his
record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant states that his rater was coerced by superior officers to
make the contested report a referral, that there was undue emphasis on
an isolated incident, and, that there was a lack of performance
feedback counseling.
In support of the appeal applicant submits numerous e-mails between
himself and the rater of the contested report.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in the
grade of major.
A similar application was submitted under the provisions of AFI 36-
2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. The
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the
applicant’s documentation and denied the appeal.
OPR profile since 1993, follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
1 Jul 93 Meets Standards (MS)
1 Jul 94 MS
1 Jul 95 MS
1 Jul 96 MS
*4 Jul 98 5 MS ratings
1 does not MS
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the
application and states that the rater should be writing a letter (with
date and signature) of support to void the contested OPR since the
flavor of the e-mails indicates the applicant was not dealt with
fairly. They point out as stated in AFPC/DPPP’s decision memorandum,
“if the rater believes she was coerced, she must provide clear
evidence for the Board to make a determination. The supporting
statement must identify the person who did the coercing, list the
specific threats that were made, and identify any witnesses who can
corroborate the incident. To strengthen the case, it would be helpful
to have statements from members of the rating chain that provide clear
evidence of error or injustice.”
They also point out that the rating was still the rater’s choice as to
whether or not to refer the report to the applicant. Had she chosen
not to refer it, then it would have been up to the additional rater to
refer the report.
In this case, the applicant provides nothing from any of the
evaluators, particularly the rater. Without benefit of supporting
documentation from anyone in the evaluation chain, they can only
conclude the OPR is accurate as written. Therefore, they recommend
denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 14 June 1999, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 19 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 Jun 99, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jun 99.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
The contested report was filed in applicant’s records on 29 Jul 98. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a one-page statement and a statement from his commander. Therefore, we recommend his record, to include the contested report, be considered by an SSB for the CY98B selection board.
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY REC J@h 2 1998 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03573 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO - APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) which closed out 15 Jun 97, be included for consideration on the CY97C Lt Col selection board through the Special Selection Board (SSB). To justly select officers for promotion, the Central Selection Board should consider/review the officer's entire record. A complete copy...
They further note that a PME recommendation is not a determining factor or guarantee of promotion selection by the promotion board. The selection board had his entire officer selection record that clearly outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and...
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...
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...
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. While the applicant provided statements from individuals outside the rating chain, we are not persuaded...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01229
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
DPPPA further states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. 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. Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Jul 98.
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The 16th Operations Support Squadron (OSS) completed a 161-day OPR reflecting his current duty, Operations Officer, early in order to be signed and faxed to the promotion board in time for inclusion in his records. The Editor also states that the rater did have full intent for the contested report to meet the board. HENRY ROMO, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-01203 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...