RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01548 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the  period  13 Aug
97 through 17 Feb 98, be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The rater’s overall assessment is inappropriate because  it  fails  to
state the outcome of the board, which  vindicated  her.   The  Faculty
Board action resulted from interaction with the inexperienced  Defense
Equal  Opportunity  Management  Institute  (DEOMI)   staff   who   was
inexperienced in dealing with senior officers.  In  recognizing  that,
the Faculty Board recommended retention and she graduated the  course.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  her
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
5 Oct 77.  She was progressively promoted to the grade  of  lieutenant
colonel, with an effective date and date of  rank  of  1 Jan  94.  The
following is a resume of her OPR ratings subsequent to  her  promotion
to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               7 Jan 94      Meets Standards (MS)
               7 Jan 95           MS
              10 Aug 95           MS
               2 Oct 96           MS
              12 Aug 97           MS
            * 17 Feb 98      Does Not Meet Standards

*  Contested Referral

On 30 Jun 98, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade
of lieutenant colonel under the provisions of AFI  36-3203  (Voluntary
Retirement)  and  retired,  effective  1  Jul  98.   At  the  time  of
retirement, she served a total of 20 years, 8 months and  26  days  of
active service for retirement; and, 20 years, 9 months and 11 days  of
service per 10 USC 1405.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied.  DPPP  stated  that
the fact the applicant met a faculty board is not the  failure  of  an
intended personnel action.  Documentation provided  by  the  applicant
indicates she was not acquitted or vindicated, but put  on  probation.
The governing Air Force instruction states  that  the  evaluators  can
mention the underlying conduct or misconduct that formed the basis for
the action.  As to the Air  Force  Core  Values  Training  comment  in
Section VI of the contested report being hearsay  and  unreliable,  no
documentation was provided to support her opinion.  With regard to the
OPR being unnecessary, the governing Air  Force  instruction  provides
the rater the option to render a report when  a  member  is  retiring.
DPPP stated that there is no evidence of error or injustice.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion  and  indicated  that  the
intent of the governing Air Force instruction is to ensure information
used to document performance is reliable and supported by  substantial
evidence.  It further ensures that,  if  conduct  or  misconduct  took
place, and is established by reliable  information  and  supported  by
substantial  evidence,  then  it  is  appropriate  to   document   it.
Information received from someone not in an official  capacity,  whose
motivations  are  unknown,  cannot  be  considered  reliable.    Board
proceedings that had no established basis, no findings  of  behavioral
failures, and rendered inconsistent and baseless  conclusions,  cannot
be considered as reliable or substantial  evidence.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant’s complete  submission
was  thoroughly   reviewed,   which   included   the   Faculty   Board
Recommendation.  In this respect, we find no evidence, which has shown
to our satisfaction, that the statements on the contested report  were
erroneous or that the applicant’s evaluators were unable to  render  a
fair and honest assessment of her performance and promotion potential.
 Additionally, we found no evidence  that  the  contested  report  was
prepared contrary  to  the  governing  instruction.   The  applicant’s
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in   and   by   themselves   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility.  We therefore agree with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary  responsibility  and
conclude that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that  she
has suffered either an error or injustice. In view  of  the  foregoing
and in the absence of clear and convincing evidence that the contested
report was an inaccurate  depiction  of  the  applicant’s  performance
during the  period  in  question,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 July 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
              Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01548:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 11 Jul 02, w/atchs.



                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair