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
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
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
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
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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...
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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...