RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00045

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered  for  the  periods  29  July
1996 through 1 April 1997 and 17 October 1998 through 16 September 1999,  be
declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The ratings are inconsistent with her prior Army and civilian record.

The applicant states that the  derogatory  OPRs  were  in  response  to  her
filing an Inspector General complaint against nursing management.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade  of
captain.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
major by the Calendar Year 2000A Central Major Selection Board.

The applicant filed a similar appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board
(ERAB); however, her request was returned without action, because a copy  of
her  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)  was  not   attached,   nor   was
documentation authorizing early removal of the UIF.





Applicant’s performance profile follows:

          PERIOD ENDING                OVERALL EVALUATION

            30 Aug 89 (Army rpt)     1s on all factors, except
                                     motivates, challenges and
                                     develops subordinates -2
            31 Aug 89 - 28 Jul 96    No report required
          *  1 Apr 97 (Referral)     Meets Standards (MS) on all
                                     factors, except Prof Qual
            12 Jan 98                          MS
            16 Oct 98                          MS
          * 16 Sep 99 (Referral     MS on all factors except
                                    Leadership Skills, Prof Qual,
                                    Judgement & Decisions, and
                                    Communication Skills

* Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application  be  denied.   AFPC/DPPPE  states,  in
part, that while the applicant  submits  several  letters  of  support  from
personnel outside the official rating chain, she did not  submit  statements
from the evaluators who signed the report or from other individuals  in  the
rating chain.  Furthermore, she did not prove  the  OPRs  are  reprisal  for
filing an IG complaint.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings in the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation  and  have
nothing further to add.  Since AFPC/DPPPE  recommends  disapproval,  Special
Selection Board (SSB) consideration is not warranted.  However,  should  the
Board void the OPRs, she should receive  SSB  consideration  for  the  CY00A
board since both OPRs were on file for that board.

The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Complete  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 22 February 2002  for  review  and  response  within  30  days.
However, 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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, a majority  of  the  Board
is not persuaded that she has met her burden of proving that  the  contested
reports are in error or unjust.  The applicant contends the ratings  on  the
contested reports are inconsistent with her prior Army and civilian  record;
however, the contested  reports  were  rendered  based  on  her  performance
during the periods of each report -  not  prior  or  subsequent  periods  of
performance.  Although the applicant contends the reports were  rendered  in
reprisal for her filing an IG  complaint  against  nursing  management,  she
provides insufficient evidence to  support  this  allegation.   Furthermore,
the applicant has not provided supporting statements from any of her  rating
chain officials. . There being insufficient evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

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

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board  considered  Docket  Number  02-00045  in
Executive Session on 16 April 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. George Franklin, Member
                       Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member

A majority of the Board voted to deny the application.   Mr. Franklin  voted
to grant the relief request  and  submits  a  Minority  Report  that  is  at
Exhibit F.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 25 Jan 02.



    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 11 Feb 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 02.
      Exhibit F.  Minority Report.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair






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

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had
not provided sufficient 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 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                  FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT: APPLICANT, DOCKET NO: 02-00045

      A majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s request that
the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods 29 July
1996 through 1 April 1997 and 17 October 1998 through 16 September 1999, be
declared void and removed from her records.  However, in view of the
circumstances in this case, I believe she should receive the requested
relief.

      A majority of the Board believes that in the absence of  an  Inspector
General (IG) finding of reprisal,  there  exists  no  basis  upon  which  to
recommend favorable  consideration  of  her  request.   I  disagree.   While
favorable findings by the IG regarding reprisal action would be  beneficial,
I believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that  she  has  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant has  provided  a  letter  of
reference from a former commander and two  favorable  OPRs  rendered  during
the  period  between  the  contested  reports.   In  addition,  I  find   it
reasonable to conclude that after filing an  IG  complaint  against  nursing
management, the it was impossible for her to receive  a  fair  and  unbiased
evaluation of her performance.  Furthermore, I believe  it  is  unreasonable
to require her to provide statements from the  same  rating  officials  that
rendered these reports in order to receive favorable consideration.

      In view of the above, I believe the interest of justice  can  best  be
served by resolving this issue in the applicant’s behalf.

      Based on the foregoing, I recommend that the OPRs rendered for the
periods 29 July 1996 through 1 April 1997 and 17 October 1998 through
16 September 1999, be declared void and removed from her records.




                                        GEORGE FRANKLIN
                                        Panel Member