Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101766
Original file (0101766.doc) Auto-classification: Approved


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01766
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period  21
Jun 98 through 20 Jun 99 be removed from his records and that a  Letter
of  Evaluation  (LOE),  AF  Form  77,  Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet,
rendered on him for the period 14 Apr 99 through 4 Jul 99 be  added  to
his permanent personnel records.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR closing out 20 Jun 99 rendered on him was essentially a rewrite
of a referral OPR written by  his  rater  who  was  removed  after  his
objections due to confirmation of three allegations against  his  rater
by the inspector general (IG).

The tepid language of the new OPR failed  to  accurately  describe  his
actual duty performance.  The OPR does not reference  key  duties  that
had a significant impact on the mission of the Air Force.   His  former
rater  trivialized  his  duty  performance  in  an  obvious  effort  to
retaliate for his  IG  complaint  in  violation  of  the  Whistleblower
Rights.

Prior to the IG investigation, he had received an outstanding  OPR  and
an outstanding feedback.  His performance was stellar as indicated by a
copy of an LOE he has attached.

In addition to improper comments on his faith  group  in  section  III,
line 2, and section VI, the new OPR was weakened in several ways.   The
strongest comment made in section IV by his former  rater  was  deleted
and an entire line wasted for the word “base”.  He also advised in  the
report that his rater had been removed due to an IG complaint.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 20 Feb  84.
A profile of his last ten Officer Performance Reports follows:

      Closeout Date               Overall Evaluation


    4 May 91                   Meets Standards

    4 May 92                   Meets Standards
    4 May 93                   Meets Standards
    4 May 94                   Meets Standards
    4 May 95                   Meets Standards
    4 May 96                   Meets Standards
    20 Jun 97                  Meets Standards
    20 Jun 98                  Meets Standards
   *20 Jun 99                  Meets Standards
    20 Jun 00                  Meets Standards

*  Contested report

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division evaluated this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The applicant believes  it  was  unfair  for  his  new  rater  to  have
maintained the comments written by the former rater who was removed for
cause.  In their 1 May 01 memorandum,  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board asked the applicant to provide statements from the evaluators who
prepared the report or others higher  in  the  rating  chain  when  the
report was signed, or as an alternative,  the  finalized  IG  or  Equal
Opportunity   and   Treatment   investigation,    substantiating    his
contentions.  The applicant did not obtain the requested information.

It would not be appropriate to  file  the  AF  Form  77  (LOE)  in  the
applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) in place of the  OPR.   LOEs
are not maintained in the OSR.   Evaluators  may  use  the  information
reflected in LOEs to prepare the ratee’s next OPR, but does not  attach
them to the report.

In their 1 May 01 memo, the ERAB  addressed  the  applicant’s  concerns
over his evaluator’s use of the  word  “Protestant”  in  the  contested
report.  The word  “Protestant”  has  been  used  on  previous  Officer
Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and OPRs and as part  of  the  applicant’s
duty title for his  entire  career.   The  applicant  did  not  provide
additional evidence proving use of the word “Protestant”  had  weakened
his record in any way.

The applicant further contends his rater dropped the “t” from the  word
budget, wasted a full line for the word  base,  and  omitted  the  word
personnel, deleted the strongest comment written by the  former  rater,
and referred to the IG complaint.  AFPC/DPPP also notes that  the  word
“challenge” is misspelled.

The ERAB removed the reference to the  IG,  but  did  not  correct  the
spelling errors (budget and challenge) and  missing  word  (personnel).
They recommend the AFBCMR direct correction of the misspelled words and
addition of the word personnel.  They do not recommend  adding  another
accomplishment to the OPR without the support of his rater.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was mailed to the applicant on 20 Jul  01  for
review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response  has  not  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The overall poor quality  of
the contested OPR causes the Board to question the  rater’s  commitment
to rendering a fair and impartial  evaluation  of  the  applicant.   In
addition to the numerous errors pointed out by the applicant, the Board
found  another  misspelled  word  in  the  report.   In  weighing   the
circumstances that the OPR  was  accomplished  under  and  the  obvious
inattention to detail, the Board believes  that  the  OPR  creates  the
appearance of an injustice.  Therefore, the Board believes it would  be
in the best interest of justice to remove the report  in  its  entirety
from the applicant’s record.  The  Board  also  notes  the  applicant’s
request to make the AF Form 77 rendered on him for the period 14 Apr 99
through 4 Jul 99 a permanent part of his records.  Since granting  this
request would be contrary to Air Force regulatory guidance,  the  Board
finds no basis to favorably  consider  this  part  of  the  applicant’s
request.  Therefore, the Board recommends that the record be  corrected
as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show  that  the  AF  Form  707A,
Field Grade Officer Performance Report, rendered for the period 21 June
1998 through 20 June  1999  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 9 October 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

All  members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Jul 01,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Jul 01.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-01766


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that the AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report,
rendered for the period 21 June 1998 through 20 June 1999 be, and
hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.







            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00911

    Original file (BC-2002-00911.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Aug 02 for review and response (Exhibit E). JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-00911 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04126

    Original file (BC-2008-04126.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04126 INDEX CODE: 136.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be considered by the Calendar Year 2008A (CY08A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) (P0608A) (12 May 08) with his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 11 Jul 07 through 1 May 08, along...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-02532

    Original file (BC-2003-02532.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The previous directive clearly states that any nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, in-the-primary zone, prior to the applicant receiving a minimum of two OPRs with at least 250 days of supervision, in the grade of major, will be set aside. Counsel further contends that the only appropriate corrective action to be taken in this case is to directly promote the applicant to the grade of lieutenant colonel. In previous consideration of this case it was directed that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800590

    Original file (9800590.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102286

    Original file (0102286.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant did not provide any official documentation stating he was unjustly relieved of his command at Altus AFB, OK. It is a well-known fact that a commander leaving a command position is decorated for his work, unless he is relieved for cause during his command. Regarding the issue that he did not submit a substantiated IG complaint concerning his removal from command, he indicates that this appeal is a request to correct a wrong.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9901399

    Original file (9901399.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01399 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Evaluation (LOE), dated 3 Feb 96, become a permanent addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be corrected to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any reference to a retirement date...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02140

    Original file (BC-2007-02140.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02140 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.09 COUNSEL: RICHARD V. STEVENS HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2005B (CY05B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) be declared void and removed from his records, and a reaccomplished...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01212

    Original file (BC-2010-01212.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C through D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The complete AFPC/DPSOO’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states AFI 36-2501,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02317

    Original file (BC-2004-02317.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant contends the bias treatment he received on the contested reports carried over to the rating on his OPR closing 31 Aug 02, which he filed the IG complaint over. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to remove three contested OPRs from his record, to consider him for promotion to the grade of major by special selection board, and reinstatement to active duty. In removing the three...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0001792

    Original file (0001792.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response which is attached at Exhibit E. Applicant also provided a response which is attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, since the AF Form 77 which indicated the applicant’s completion of...