RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00339
INDEX CODE: 114.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 17 Mar 98
through 16 Dec 98 be removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Undue emphasis on an isolated incident combined with geographic separation,
tainted her commander's perception of her performance for the duration of
the reporting period. The OPR is not reflective of her performance;
specifically, it omits any reference to her ability to lead as a commander.
The events surrounding the incident resulted in an unfair report that was
based on feelings and not facts.
In support of her request, applicant provided documents associated with her
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal. Her complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 4 May 85 and
was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 12 May 85. She has been
progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 97. She currently has a
projected date of separation of 31 Mar 05.
The following is a resume of her recent OPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
29 Jun 01 Meets Standards
05 Aug 00 Meets Standards
16 Dec 99 Meets Standards
16 Dec 98 (Contested Report) Meets Standards
16 Mar 98 Meets Standards
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPPPE
states that the ERAB denied her request because she did not provide
statements from her rater, additional rater, and reviewer supporting her
contentions. Additionally, she did not provide any evidence that
geographic separation resulted in an unfair evaluation. Many individuals
have to perform duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision;
therefore, separation alone is not a good argument. The DPPPE evaluation
is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Feb
01 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant contends that undue emphasis on
an isolated incident and geographic separation tainted her commander’s
perception of her performance, which resulted in an unfairly written
performance report. Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not
find her uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by
the Air Force. We are not convinced by the evidence she provided in
support of her appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate
assessment of her performance during the specified time period. Therefore,
in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of 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 Docket Number 02-00339 in
Executive Session on 14 May 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 02.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01442
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01442 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 July 2000 through 31 May 2001 be removed from her records and replaced with a reaccomplished report; and she receive promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03138
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03138 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Field Grade Officer Performance Reports (OPR) closing out 30 September 1998, 30 September 1999, 30 September 2000 and 31 July 2001 be removed and replaced with reaccomplished reports covering the same periods and consideration for promotion to...
His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 6 Jul 99 through 3 Nov 99 be removed from his records. The primary argument to delete the referral OPR is detailed in his rebuttal to the OPR and in his IG complaint. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states that he never disputed that he made mistakes.
It was never referred to him nor were its contents made known to him until after it was a matter of record. However, they recommend the report be corrected by transferring its content to an AF Form 707B. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00702
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the ERAB denied the applicant's appeal based on no evidence of coercion-evaluators are encouraged to discuss disagreements before finalizing a report; also, based on the limited space on the form, it is the responsibility of the evaluator to determine what information goes in the report; and lastly, his additional rater provided sufficient rationale as to why a...
Therefore, we recommend that her record, to include the “Definitely Promote” recommendation on the CY97C PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by special selection board (SSB) for the CY97C Central Major Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation, AF Form 709,...
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-00787
Because she was an outstanding officer up to the time of her improper removal from command, she should be promoted to lieutenant colonel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommends denial. She has not submitted any evidence to support her claim and there is no evidence that he relied on rumors as a basis for admonishing her or relieving her from command.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00246
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As a squadron commander, he received an OPR that was inconsistent with prior evaluation due to a personality conflict with the wing commander and lack of feedback from the logistics group commander. The additional rater of the contested report was also the additional rater for the previous OPR closing 16 Mar 00. He also indicated he received no performance feedback.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...