ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00702
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 February 1999 be declared void and
replaced with a reaccomplished report and he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for
Calendar Year 2000 and 2001 Selection Boards.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) and his appeal was denied.
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 2 July
2002. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant's separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.
On 13 March 2003, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration
contending that because he was participating in the Exceptional Family
Member Program, he suffered workplace harassment and discrimination which
resulted in his receiving an inaccurate OPR (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. In the Board’s initial
review of the application, it found insufficient evidence that the
contested report was an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s
performance during the contested time period. However, based upon the
statements from his rating chain, the Board indicated its willingness to
reconsider the case provided the applicant submit a reaccomplished report
adding only command and ISS recommendations to the rater and additional
rater comments. The applicant apparently was unable to obtain a
reaccomplished report with only these changes, and has again requested
that the Board review the contested report and render a decision that the
report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance and should be
replaced with the reaccomplished report on the basis that the additional
rater harassed and discriminated against him in the workplace because he
was enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). After an
exhaustive review of all the documentation submitted, to include the e-
mail messages between the report’s rater and reviewer and the original
statements from the rating chain, we are still not persuaded that the
applicant has established the report is inaccurate and should be voided
and replaced. In the Board’s opinion, the statements coupled with the
reaccomplished report, originally provided in support of the appeal
constitute retrospective assessments of the applicant’s performance,
apparently written as after-the-fact attempts to enhance the applicant’s
promotability. However, such motivations are not sufficient to support
findings that the report itself is erroneous or unjust. While the rater
and additional rater are apparently of the opinion that the wording
should be changed on the contested report, neither individual offers any
specific information concerning the applicant’s performance that was
unknown to them at the time the report was prepared. In view of the
findings that the contested OPR is neither unjust nor inaccurate, we
believe it should stand as written. We would again suggest that the
applicant attempt to obtain a reaccomplished report replicating the
contested report but which contains the command and school
recommendations. In view of the foregoing, applicant’s request to have
the contested report voided and replaced with a reaccomplished report and
he be given SSB consideration 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-
00702 in Executive Session on 30 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 2 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated
13 Mar 03, w/atchs.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2002-00702
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction for 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 , be corrected to show that:
a. The Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form
707A, rendered for the period 2 February 1998 through 1 February 1999,
be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from his records.
b. The attached reaccomplished Field Grade Officer Performance
Report (OPR), AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 2 February 1998 through
1 February 1999, be accepted for file in its proper sequence.
It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar
Years 2000 and 2001 Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards and for any
subsequent boards for which the OPR closing 1 February 1999, was a matter
of record.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attachment:
Reaccomplished OPR
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM: SAF/MR
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on
I have carefully considered the circumstances of this case and do not
agree with the AFBCMR that the applicant’s requests should be denied.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Years 2000A (CY00A) and 2001B (CY01B)
central selection boards. In a subsequent application to the Board, he
contended that the OPR closing 1 Feb 99 was downgraded because he was
enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP), which violated
the intent and spirit of the Family Advocacy Program (FAP). He further
contended that the additional rater used the OPR in determining his
assignment availability and abused the OPR review process by coercing the
rater. In support of his request, he provided statements from the rater
and additional rater. The Board considered and denied the appeal, but
informed him that if he provided a reaccomplished report with a
recommendation for command and Intermediate Service School (ISS) only, they
would again review his case. In the reconsideration request, applicant
advises he was unable to obtain the reaccomplished report but was
submitting his reconsideration request based on additional evidence. He
stated that due to his participation in the EFMP, he was subjected to
workplace harassment and discrimination, resulting in an inaccurate report.
In support of his request, the applicant provides e-mail communication
between the rater and the reviewer of the contested report. The Board
reviewed and again denied the appeal reiterating the belief that the OPR
was an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance.
The rater indicates that the additional rater had nominated the
applicant for command selection; however, the applicant was unable to
accept this once-in-a-lifetime command opportunity due to the approved EFMP
case. Shortly thereafter, the contested OPR became due and the sensitivity
of the command issue and the additional rater’s frustration with the
situation unfolded. The rater indicates that because of the strong
recommendation from the additional rater, she did not include
recommendations for command or ISS; and that this omission was based solely
on the applicant’s inability to accept the assignment due to the EFMP.
The additional rater advises that since the applicant was unable to
relocate for an assignment, he did not feel he could recommend him for an
assignment that would require relocation, such as command or ISS. The
context of the contested OPR would have been unknown to a promotion board
and the lack of a recommendation for command or ISS may have overly
influenced their decision. The reviewer agrees with the changes made to
the report and appreciates the opportunity to correct the situation.
Given the unequivocal support from the rating chain and having no
basis to question their integrity, equity dictates that the applicant’s
records be corrected as requested.
MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
Assistant Secretary
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs)
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-01150
Based on these statements, we recommend that the duty title be corrected. In his appeal to this Board, applicant has requested that he be considered for ISS, which is the appropriate PME recommendation that should have been indicated on the OPR. Therefore, we recommend the duty title and PME recommendation be changed on the contested OPR and that his corrected report be considered for promotion and ISS by SSBs.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00890
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response and additional documentary evidence which are attached...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02720
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2006-02720 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 March 2008 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) by the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) (6 Jul 05) (P0505A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02726
His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 21 May 2001 be replaced with a reaccomplished report. While the majority has no reason to doubt the rater’s sincerity, the Board majority believes the rater’s initial statement that he intended for the report to have a negative connotation more accurately reflects his perception of the applicant’s performance during the contested time period. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00801
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00801 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Sep 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 9 Apr 02 through 14 Feb 03 be declared void and removed from his records, and the attached reaccomplished OPR be accepted...
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated either his OPR contained material errors, or he was placed at a disadvantage at the promotion board because the OPRs of other individuals contained prohibited comments. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01997 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Apr 04 through 31 Aug 04 be declared void and removed from his records, and the attached reaccomplished OPR be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00067
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00067 INDEX CODES: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 21 Aug 99 through 20 Aug 00 be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished OPR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00322
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter, dated 28 Apr 04, the applicant provided a response to the advisory opinions, reiterating the contested report is erroneous and unjust. It is the majority’s opinion that the statements from the rater and additional rater represent their retrospective judgments of the applicant’s performance which, in their view,...