RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00702
INDEX CODE: 131.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: Joseph W. Kastl
SSN HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 6 May 1999 through
2 January 2000 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OPR in question is not an accurate assessment of his job
performance. He was never given any notice that his performance may
have been deficient. Nor, was he given an explanation of how he
failed to meet standards. He accomplished the mission safely and on
time. He was not afforded the time to bring the unit up to
excellence.
In support of his appeal the applicant's counsel submitted a thirteen-
page brief, with attachments (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of colonel.
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) requesting the OPR be removed from his records because the OPR
did not reflect an accurate assessment of his work performance. The
ERAB was not convinced by the applicant's documentation and denied the
appeal.
Applicant’s OPR profile as a colonel is listed below.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
6 May 98 Meets Standards
5 May 99 Meets Standards
*2 Jan 00 3 Meets Standards, 3 Does Not
Meet Standards (Leadership
Skills), Organization Skills,
Judgement and Decisions, the
latter two were upgraded by
the Additional Rater
2 Jan 01 Meets Standards
4 Jun 01 Meets Standards
*Contested Referral Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE states feedback is required in accordance with Air Force
policy, however, there may be no direct correlation between the
information provided during feedback and the assessment on the
evaluation report. A service member may receive a positive feedback
session prior to the preparation of his report, however, if a problem
occurs before the report is written, the evaluator must address the
issue in the report, even if the issue disagrees with the previous
feedback.
AFI 36-2402 does not require a rater to give a detailed explanation on
the report as to how the ratee did not meet standards. The purpose of
a referral report is to provide the ratee with the opportunity to
comment on items identified as not meeting the minimum standards, as
in the applicant's case.
The applicant further contends that he was not given sufficient time
to bring the unit up to excellence. His concerns were addressed in
his rebuttal to the additional rater. The additional rater after
considering the comments upgraded the impacted areas on the report in
accordance with the AFI.
Based on the evidence provided, DPPPE recommends denying the
applicant's request.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the counsel on 26
Apr 02, 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 error or injustice to warrant removing the
applicant's OPR rendered for the period ending 2 January 2000. We
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the recommendation of the
Air Force and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he
has suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, 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(s) 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 probable 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-
00702 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Officer Selection Brief.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting the OPR be removed from his records because the OPR did not reflect an accurate assessment of his work performance. Based on the evidence provided, DPPPE recommends denying the applicant's request. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02- 00958 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the provisions of AFI...
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...
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.
During performance feedback in May 01, his commander reviewed his record, pointing out the inconsistencies in the report in question. Therefore, the “X” should be moved from the “concur block” to the “nonconcur block.” DPPP further states that while current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. A complete copy of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02352
The applicant concedes that this was a result of an incident involving a staff sergeant, but believes the incident was a misunderstanding and overstressed by his rater. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel responded to the evaluations by indicating that they have demonstrated in their basic filing that the applicant’s rater was biased against him. We note...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01915
In support of the application, the applicant submits a personal statement, expanding and elaborating on her contentions, a copy of the contested report, an e-mail request to her supervisor for a copy of her feedback session MFR, her OPR for the period of 1 August 2001 through 31 July 2002, OPR inputs to her supervisor, and memorandum from HQ AFPC/DPPP announcing the Evaluation Report Appeal Board’s (ERAB’s) denial of her appeal. The burden of proof is on the applicant and, in DPPPE’s...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01070 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: MR. FRED L. BAUER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 31 May 1999 and any mention of his relief of command be removed from his records and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel....
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03320
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not by itself invalidate an EPR.” While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Accordingly, if a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater, where the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00945
On 30 November 2001, the applicant submitted an appeal regarding the 31 March 2000 OPR to the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the members of his supervisory chain were not in a position to provide a correct evaluation of performance for the period of the OPR in question. Only with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02814
Despite having completed nearly 18 years of service, TSgt Willis decided to separate. The sole evidence of her alleged lack of integrity and failure to meet standards is the fact that she and TSgt Willis began dating and were married fairly soon after his separation. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.