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