Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01548a
Original file (BC-2002-01548a.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01548 (Case 2)
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s request for reconsideration,  she  requests  her  Officer
Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 13 Aug 97 through  17  Feb
98, be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered  active  duty  on  5  Oct  77  and  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.  She received  five  (5)  Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) in the grade of lieutenant colonel, in which  the
overall evaluations  were  “Meets  Standards”  and  one  (1)  Referral  OPR,
closing  17 Feb  98,  with  the  overall  evaluation  of  “Does   Not   Meet
Standards.”  The applicant was relieved from active duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel on 30  Jun  98,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3203
(Voluntary  Retirement),  and  retired  on  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.

A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board  on  23 Jul  02.   A
summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the  rationale  for  its
decision is set forth in the Record of Proceedings,  which  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

The applicant has submitted a request for reconsideration,  contending  that
the stress of her emotional and physical problems during  the  time  of  the
contested report affected her more than she knew and affected her  decision-
making and interaction with others.  To  support  the  applicant’s  request,
the rater of the contested report submitted a statement in her behalf.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in  support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the  contested  report  should  be
removed from the applicant’s records.  We have reviewed the comments by  the
rater of the contested OPR  and  do  not  find  his  statement  provides  an
adequate basis to recommend approval of the  requested  relief.   The  rater
did not specifically indicate  that  his  assessment  was  incorrect.   Even
though the applicant had medical  problems,  the  rater  was  aware  of  her
medical situation when she was assigned to the organization.   Although  the
rater now supports the applicant’s request, it  was  his  responsibility  to
ensure the report was accurate at the time it was  rendered.   A  review  of
the evidence  provided  does  not  persuade  us  that  the  evaluators  were
precluded from rendering a fair and accurate assessment of  the  applicant’s
duty performance at the time the  report  was  rendered.   In  view  of  the
foregoing, and in the absence of persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling basis upon which to recommend favorable  action  on  this
application.
_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in  Executive
Session on 5 May 03, 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 BC 2002-01548:

      Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Aug 02,
                with Exhibits.
      Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 8 Nov 02, with
                attachment.




                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201548

    Original file (0201548.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The HQ AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03562-2

    Original file (BC-2002-03562-2.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03562-2 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his P0500A promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect a $166 million program versus an $80 million...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01218

    Original file (BC-2003-01218.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he received dated 9 Feb 01 be removed from his OSR. The letter of rebuttal that he wrote to the referral OPR was not included in his personnel file and the OPR rendered on him closing 22 Feb 02 was not included in his OSR for the FY03 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened in Jun 02. However it is not clear as to the date the applicant’s response to the Referral OPR was included in the file.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03562

    Original file (BC-2002-03562.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-03562 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0500A promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect a $166 million program versus an $80 million program; his completion of the USAF F-15E Instructor Upgrade Course be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03695

    Original file (BC-2003-03695.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel takes exception to the advisory opinions and presents arguments contending the application is timely, his client is not seeking promotion on the basis of expediency, she did attempt to involve the IG and upgrade the AFCM, and sufficient evidence has been provided to warrant granting the relief sought. It...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00500

    Original file (BC-2004-00500.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the rater is simply letting the applicant know that her assessment was what she intended it to be at the time and she has no valid reason to change her assessment four years later. Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 7 May 04. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-2004-00500 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00165

    Original file (BC-1998-00165.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800165

    Original file (9800165.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02652

    Original file (BC-2006-02652.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel replies that they have demonstrated an unequivocal nexus between the senior rater and the contested OPR. Considering the documented demeaning attitude her senior rater had towards women, we find it feasible to believe the applicant’s senior rater may have inappropriately influenced the additional rater’s downgrading of the report in question. NOVEL Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02718

    Original file (BC-2002-02718.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEB states that in reference to the applicant’s assertion that the senior rater signed the PRF based on an incorrect officer performance report and without knowledge of several major career achievements, the senior rater could have included the accomplishments in the applicant’s original PRF without it being documented in the record of performance. The most significant documents provided for our review...