RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00052
INDEX NUMBER: 111.01
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for
the period 4 March 1996 to 30 September 1996 be removed from his
records.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The attachments filed with the referral OPR closing out
30 September 1996 are not the attachments he submitted with his
rebuttal and, therefore, the reviewer never saw or considered his
actual rebuttal and attachments.
He was given a referral OPR due to undue influence outside his
rating chain.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Personnel Data System reflects the applicant’s total years of
service date (TYSD) as 22 April 1988. He transferred to the Air
Force Reserves on 1 January 1997.
The applicant’s OPRs, both prior and subsequent to the contested
report, indicate overall ratings of “meets standards.”
Information provided by the applicant and the Air Force indicates
that the applicant was involved in an off duty incident where he
refused to take a Breathalyzer on 14 Apr 96. A referral OPR was
rendered on him for the period 25 June 1995 through 24 June 1996
and referred to him by his additional rater on 17 January 1997.
The applicant successfully pointed out to the reviewer in his
rebuttal that the period covered by the referral report was
incorrect and that he was due a change of reporting official (CRO)
report closing out 3 March 1996. The reviewer agreed with him and
directed that a CRO be accomplished for the period 25 June 1995 to
3 March 1996. Since the off duty incident occurred after the
closeout of the CRO, the report was not referred.
The additional rater determined that an OPR should be accomplished
on the applicant to document his misconduct. He directed that a
report be accomplished under AFI 36-2402, Table 3.1, Rule 3. It
could not be determined that anyone supervising the applicant had
the required 120 days of supervision. It was finally decided that
one of the applicant’s supervisors had 110 days of supervision
encompassing the date of the incident. The additional rater
requested and received a waiver for a report to be rendered on the
applicant with only 110 days of supervision. The contested report,
covering the period 4 Mar 96 thru 30 Sep 96, was referred to the
applicant on 9 December 1997. The applicant submitted a rebuttal
on 8 January 1998.
The applicant appealed the report to the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB). The ERAB denied the applicant’s request on
22 October 1999.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Evaluations Program Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, evaluated this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
It was determined that the applicant’s attachments to his rebuttal
could have been incorrectly processed and the wrong attachments
filed with the report. The reviewer confirmed, however, that he had
reviewed and considered the rebuttal and attachments intended by
the applicant. The reviewer’s endorsement is dated
9 December 1997, prior to the applicant’s rebuttal, but the
reviewer also verified that he actually signed the report on or
about 13 January 1998, after the applicant’s rebuttal.
In regard to the applicant’s contention that the report was
referred because of undue influence, the applicant failed to
provide any documentation or evidence to support this.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review
and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been
received.
___________________________________________________________________
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 opinions and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, based on
the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to
favorably consider this application.
___________________________________________________________________
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 28 June 2000, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Ms. Olga Crerar, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Dec 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Mar 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Apr 00.
Richard A. Peterson
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01510
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration since AFPC/DPPPE has recommended that the contested OPR not be voided. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004- 01510 in Executive Session on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00772
In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) denial letter dated 10 January 2003, a copy of the contested EPR, a copy of the referral EPR notification, a copy of supporting statements from his raters and additional rater, a copy of his TDY voucher, and his letter concerning his former commander. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) in December 2002 requesting his EPR for the period 12 May...
During performance feedback in May 01, his commander reviewed his record, pointing out the inconsistencies in the report in question. Therefore, the “X” should be moved from the “concur block” to the “nonconcur block.” DPPP further states that while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. A complete copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00436
By the time it was discovered that the allegations of misconduct against him were not supported by the facts, he had already been relieved of command. With the exception of the contested referral OPR closing 15 Aug 02, the applicant’s OPRs have been rated as “meets standards.” According to the military personnel data system, the applicant has an approved retirement effective 1 Oct 04. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02802
He receive direct promotion to the grade of major with an effective date of rank as if he had been promoted by the CY02A (19 Feb 02) (P0402A) Major Central Selection Board (CSB); or, 2. It is DPPPE’s and DPPPO’s opinion that there is no convincing data that a material error or injustice existed in the applicant’s record; therefore, they recommend his request for direct promotion and SSB consideration be denied. Since we are unable to conclude the applicant’s record, as seen by CY02B...
The applicant previously appealed the contested OPR and her CY97B (2 Jun 97) Major Board (below-the-promotion zone (BPZ)) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the CY99A (8 March 1999) Central Major Board and any subsequent boards for which the contested report was a matter of record. It is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03649
The rater and additional rater of the contested OPR provide statements contending that the correct PME level on the report should have been for SSS rather than ISS. The OPR closing 23 Jun 97 recommends SSS in residence. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant altering the 23 Jun 96 OPR to reflect a PME recommendation of “SSS” rather than “ISS” and granting SSB consideration for the CY99A selection board.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00472
The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reiterated the applicant's contentions, provided a summary of the applicant's career and states in order for a performance report to serve its intended purpose it must correctly reflect a member's performance history. The content of an OPR based on an administrative error, that does not accurately reflect the time period during which the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01894
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01894 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 5 July 1990 through 4 January 1991, be declared void and removed from her records. Prior to the applicant’s break in service, during the period...