ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03045
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the  period  13 Feb
95 – 12 Feb 96 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 20 Mar 97, the Board considered and  denied  applicant’s  request.
Applicant contended that the contested OPR did not fairly assess  his
performance.  The comments made by the  rater  and  additional  rater
were based largely on their reaction to, and  events  which  resulted
from, an injury he received while at Squadron Officer  School  (SOS).
He felt that a combination of personal conflict, retribution over his
medical condition, and squadron rotation schedules  were  responsible
for the negative comments made on the contested OPR (see Exhibit E).

In  an  application,  dated  13 Sep  99,  the   applicant   requested
reconsideration.  He now contends that comments on the  back  of  the
report clearly require it to be referred in accordance with  AFI  36-
2402.  It was never referred to him nor were its contents made  known
to him until after it was a matter of  record.   Improper  procedures
were followed in placing the report into his records.  The report was
written on the wrong form:  707A instead of 707B.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 27 Feb 89.

Applicant’s OPR profile follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              22 Apr 91              Meets Standards
              22 Apr 92              Meets Standards
               5 Sep 92              Meets Standards
              12 Feb 93              Meets Standards
              12 Feb 94              Meets Standards
              12 Feb 95              Meets Standards
              15 Dec 95       Education/Training Report (TR)
            * 12 Feb 96              Meets Standards
              30 Aug 96              Meets Standards
              11 Sep 97               Education/TR
               9 Mar 98              Meets Standards
              15 Dec 98              Meets Standards
              21 Jul 99              Meets Standards

     *  Contested report.

On 20 Aug 95, applicant received a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR)  for
being  remiss  in  meeting  suspenses  and   accomplishing   required
administrative duties in a timely and responsible manner on  numerous
occasions.

A similar appeal was filed under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer  and
Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  On 1 Aug  99,  the  Evaluation  Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) denied the appeal for reasons stated in  AFI  36-
2603:  “The [AFBCMR] acts for the Secretary of the Air Force and  its
decision is final when it denies any application.”

The Air Force indicated that the applicant is correct in stating  the
OPR is on the wrong form (707A instead of  707B).   However,  it  has
been reaccomplished on the proper form (707B).

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the  grade
of major by the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) (8 Mar 99) Central  Major
Board.

The Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant separated from
the Air Force and was transferred to the Air Force Reserve  on  1 Mar
00 in the grade of captain.

_________________________________________________________________





AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the applicant’s primary contention  is
that the report was not properly referred in accordance with AFI  36-
2402, paragraph 3.7.1.2.  However, the applicable directive  for  the
contested OPR closing 12 Feb 96 is AFR 36-10  (AFI  36-2402  was  not
effective until 1 Jul 96).  An OPR is referral when  “[A]ny  comments
in the OPR, or the attachments, refer to behavior  incompatible  with
minimum standards of  personal  conduct,  character,  or  integrity…”
(paragraph 3-12a(2)).  The key difference in this  rule  between  the
two directives is the inclusion of “minimum” in AFR 36-10.  According
to AFR  36-10,  comments  must  reflect  behavior  incompatible  with
“minimum” standards to be considered referral.  The comments  in  the
OPR clearly point out (several times) that  the  applicant  did  meet
minimum standards.  Therefore, based on the definition in AFR  36-10,
the comments did not require referral of  the  report.   Another  key
difference between the two directives is the inclusion of paragraph 3-
12a(3) in AFR 36-10, which states, “If there is any question  whether
the report is referral, it should be referred.   In  this  case,  the
final decision of whether or not to  refer  the  OPR  is  up  to  the
evaluators and the ratee’s unit  commander.”   The  evaluators  could
have chosen  to  refer  the  report  but,  again,  referral  was  not
required.

DPPPE further states that, in applicant’s  appeal  to  the  ERAB,  he
suggests the report should be voided because he “was  never  given  a
copy of the report…and had to request one after it became a matter of
record.”  Paragraph 8-7 states:  “Unless it is a referral report, the
ratee will not be shown the prepared AF Forms  707A,  707B,  and  475
until the report is filed in the Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG).”
 Again, no violation of rules  occurred.   Further,  the  applicant’s
observation that the  report  was  prepared  on  the  wrong  form  is
correct.  However, this is a common administrative  error  that  does
not invalidate the report’s content.

Since there was no violation of the governing directive that  was  in
effect on the close date of the contested OPR, there is no  basis  to
support the applicant’s request  to  void  the  contested  OPR.   The
administrative error is  minor  and  correctable.   DPPPE  recommends
denial of the  applicant’s  request.   However,  they  recommend  the
report be corrected by transferring its content to an AF Form 707B.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.

The Chief, Appeals &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that, in the matter  of  voiding  the  OPR,
they accept AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory  and  add  the  following  for  the
Board’s consideration.  Air Force Pamphlet  36-2607,  paragraphs  9.4
and 10.1, state, “The AFBCMR is the highest level  of  administrative
appeal and provides the final Air  Force  decision.   If  the  AFBCMR
denies your case, your next step is  to  request  reconsideration  or
file a suit in the court system…The AFBCMR will reconsider your  case
only if you provide newly discovered relevant evidence that  was  not
reasonably available  when  you  filed  your  original  application.”
Based on the lack of  new  evidence,  DPPPA  recommends  denying  the
request to void the  OPR;  however,  it  was  reaccomplished  on  the
correct form.

A complete copy of their  evaluation,  with  attached  reaccomplished
OPR, is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to  applicant  on
4 Feb 00 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence  of   probable   error   or   injustice.    After   careful
consideration of applicant’s request and  the  most  recent  evidence
submitted, we are not sufficiently persuaded that a revision  of  the
earlier determination in regard to  the  OPR  closing  12 Feb  96  is
warranted.   Applicant’s  contentions  are   duly   noted;   however,
according to AFPC/DPPPE in their advisory opinion, dated  10 Jan  00,
the applicable directive for the contested OPR is AFR 36-10, not  AFI
36-2402, as the applicant asserts,  which  was  not  effective  until
1 Jul 96, after the OPR closed out.  We note that, according  to  AFR
36-10, comments must reflect  behavior  incompatible  with  “minimum”
standards to be considered referral  and  the  comments  in  the  OPR
indicate that the applicant did meet  minimum  standards;  therefore,
the comments did not  require  referral  of  the  report.   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.  Further, we do not find  substantial  evidence  that  improper
procedures were followed  in  placing  the  report  into  applicant’s
records.  In addition, we  note  that  the  contested  OPR  has  been
reaccomplished on the appropriate form, AF Form 707B.  In view of the
foregoing, we agree with the recommendations of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that  the
applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we  find  no  compelling
basis to recommend that the OPR closing 12 Feb 96  be  declared  void
and removed from applicant’s records.

_________________________________________________________________


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 12 July 2000, under the provisions of Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Apr 97, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Sep 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 10 Jan 00.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Jan 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 Feb 00.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair