RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03158
                       INDEX CODE:

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for  the  period  2 July
1998 through 1 July 1999,  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  her
record.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested report is inaccurate,  unjust  and  prejudicial  to  her
career.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal  statement  and
statements from individuals outside  her  rating  chain.   Applicant's
complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of captain.

The applicant  previously  submitted  an  appeal  application  to  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) uder  AFI  36-2401,  requesting
the OPR be removed.  The ERAB denied the request in December  2000  to
void the  report.   They  decided  to  administratively  correct  some
misleading comments and retain the report.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of major by the CY00A Selection Board.

OPR profile since 1992, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING           EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                       17 Jul 92        Meets Standards (MS)
                        1 May 93             MS
                        1 May 94             MS
                        1 May 95             MS
                       21 Dec 96        Education/Training Report
                       21 Dec 97             MS
                        1 Jul 98             MS
                       *1 Jul 99        Does Not Meet Standards
                                   (referral)
                        1 Jul 00             MS

* Contested report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPE,  reviewed  the
application and states that because the applicant did not provide  the
outcome of the Peer Review Board, they do not have sufficient evidence
to prove the Peer Review Board exonerated  her  of  all  charges.   To
effectively challenge this OPR, it would be necessary to hear from all
the members of the rating chain, not only for support,  but  also  for
clarification/explanation.   They  further  state  however,   if   the
comments in the OPR were not based solely on the Peer Review Board but
on the rater’s assessment of applicant’s  performance  throughout  the
rating period, then the report is technically correct.  Therefore,  if
the applicant can provide proof that the evaluators rated  her  solely
on the outcome of the Peer Review Board and that the  Board exonerated
her  of  all  charges,  they  recommend  the  referral   comments   be
reaccomplished or voided  if  support  from  rating  chain  cannot  be
obtained.  However, if the applicant cannot provide  sufficient  proof
or evidence that the referral comments were based solely on  the  Peer
Review Board outcome and the evaluators  support  reaccomplishment  of
referral comments, then they recommend denial to void OPR.  A complete
copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

Examiner’s Note:  According to the current  edition  of  AFI  144-119,
paragraph 7.46 (1  August  2000),  when  a  non-privileged  healthcare
professional is removed from all or a portion of patient care  duties,
a peer review function must be convened to determine the extent of the
problems  and  make  recommendations  for  further   action   on   the
professional issues of the case.  The peer  review  function  must  be
composed of at least three members and for  non-privileged  registered
nurses, all  three  members  of  the  peer  review  function  must  be
registered  nurses.   The  peer  review  function  recommends  to  the
appropriate commander that the member under review  be  reinstated  to
full duty, his or her practice be restricted, a portion of the  health
care professional’s patient duties be permanently removed, or that the
individual be permanently removed from all direct patient care duties.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 19 January 2001, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded
to the applicant 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.   After  reviewing  the
evidence of record, the Board  majority  is  not  persuaded  that  the
contested report is either in error or that the applicant has been the
victim of an injustice.  Of note is the fact that upon review  of  the
recommendataions of the Peer Review committee, the  commander  decided
to return the  applicant  to  limited  duty,  with  supervision.   The
applicant requested a copy of the Peer Review committee’s  report  and
her request was denied, apparently because the  applicant’s  superiors
determined  its  release  was  not   authorized   by   the   governing
instruction.  The Board majority is left with the conclusion that  the
applicant’s superiors had sufficient information to temporarily  limit
her duties for quality reasons and that noting this information in her
OPR was proper.  In arriving at  this  decision,  the  Board  majority
notes that, absent evidence to the contrary, there  is  a  strong  but
rebuttable presumption that members  of  the  military  perform  their
duties correctly and lawfully and in good faith.  Based on  the  above
and without the support of the applicant’s  rating  chain,  the  Board
majority does not believe disturbing  the  existing  record  would  be
appropriate.  Accordingly,  the  Board  majority  finds  no  basis  to
favorably consider this application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 4 April 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
            Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
            Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Brenda L. Romine voted to  correct  the  records,  and  submits  a
Minority Report for review.  The following  documentary  evidence  was
considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Dec 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Jan 01.
      Exhibit E.  Minority Report.




                                   HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                   Panel Chair






AFBCMR 00-03158





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency

MEMORANDUM FOR THE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY

SUBJECT:    Minority Report, AFBCMR Case of, Docket No. 00-03158

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case
and feel constrained to disagree with the determination of the
majority of the panel that the applicant’s request for removal of her
Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 July 1999 should be denied.

      The evidence indicates that three incidents occurred at the
applicant’s medical facility that resulted in write-ups on the
applicant.  At least one of these incidents was the result of a
situation created by another nurse.  A peer review placed the
applicant under closer supervision for a short period of time after
which she was returned to full practice.  She was reassigned to a
general ward -- an assignment not considered an adverse action.  I
believe it should be noted that the peer review was completed in or
around January 1999 and the contested report closed out in July 1999,
approximately 6 months later.  In her new position, the applicant
performed admirably.  A summary by the Chief Nurse Executive provided
for our review indicates that the applicant’s problems may have
stemmed from the criticism of another nurse working in the unit.  It
was determined that he had created a hostile working environment,
particularly for those officers he did not like.  During this same
period of time, he was referred for counseling and anger management
due to inappropriate outbursts.  This situation did not come to light
until approximately 10 months after the applicant’s peer review was
completed.  After considering all the matters presented, the Chief
Nurse Executive was of the opinion that the applicant had been the
victim of an unwarranted harsh evaluation and that no corrective
actions were ever planned by her rater.  While the Chief Nurse
Executive was not a member of the applicant’s rating chain on the
contested report, I believe great deference should be given to her
opinion in view of her rank, her position in the medical community and
her management expertise.  Based on the above and in view of the
contents of the supportive statements provided by the applicant’s
peers, who worked with the applicant on a day-to-day basis delivering
patient care, I have reached a conclusion different from the panel
majority.

      In view of foregoing, I believe it is reasonable to conclude
that the applicant was “railroaded” on the basis of the malignant
intentions of another nurse who created a hostile working environment
and unfairly targeted for removal from the unit nurses he did not
like.  I believe the ends of justice would best be served if any doubt
in this matter were to be resolved in the applicant’s favor.
Therefore, I believe that the contested referral report, which
represents a serious negative blot on the applicant’s otherwise
excellent record, should be removed from her records.

                                       BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                       Panel Member