RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01985 (Case 2)

            INDEX CODE:  111.01, 111.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 1 Aug 00 and 8 Feb 01,
be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPRs are not indicative of her accomplishments  and  job
performance during the rating periods but are concentrated on isolated
events.  They were a result of improper  supervision  and  retribution
for IG complaints she  filed  against  individuals  in  her  chain  of
command.

In support of her request,  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement
copies of the contested reports  with  her  rebuttal  statements,  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
15 Jan 87.  She is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of
captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 17  Oct  99.   The
following is a resume of her OPR ratings subsequent to  her  promotion
to that grade.

            Period Ending    Evaluation

               3 Dec 99      Meets Standards
            *  1 Aug 00      Does Not Meet Standards
            *  8 Feb 01      Does Not Meet Standards
               8 Feb 02      Meets Standards

*  Contested Referral OPRs

On 1 May 01, the applicant was notified that the Department of Defense
(DoD)  Inspector  General  (IG)  determined  there  was   insufficient
evidence to conduct a reprisal  investigation  under  Title  10,  U.S.
Code, Section 1034.  A copy of the IG investigation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that
evaluators  are  obliged  to  consider   isolated   incidents,   their
significance and the frequency with which they occurred  in  assessing
performance and potential.  The applicant contends the  statements  on
her 1 Aug 00 OPR are not altogether true.   She  states  she  provided
proof to her evaluators that the information listed was not true, that
she had notified her secretary of her whereabouts; however,  the  only
evidence she provided showed the secretary had made calls to the  base
operator, not to the motels the applicant was  staying  at.   Further,
there is no evidence that  the  evaluators  were  made  aware  of  the
locations from the applicant or her secretary.  The applicant contends
on the 8 Feb 01 OPR, which states “authored inadequate  work  product;
2000 Tuberculosis Risk  Assessment  contained  fundamental  flaws”  is
unjust.  She states she should not have been penalized for the Apr  00
document because it was outside the reporting  period.   However,  the
evaluators did not discover the errors until Feb 01  and  AFI  36-2406
authorizes the inclusion of prior events if they add significantly  to
the evaluation report,  were  not  known  to  and  considered  by  the
previous  evaluators,  and  were  not  previously  reflected   in   an
evaluation report.  Therefore, the mention of the 2000 document was in
accordance  with  the  AFI  and  not  considered  unjust  or   unfair.
Additionally, the applicant’s contention that the  remaining  referral
comments are false, exaggerated and unfair are only her  opinions  and
without substantiating evidence.  DPPPE indicated that  the  applicant
stated she filed two IG complaints, but only provided  a  response  to
one.  The additional support provided is from individuals who were not
aware of the applicant’s particular situation.  DPPPE states that  the
applicant indicated the  situation  was  investigated  by  an  outside
agency; however, she did not provide the results of the investigation.
 Further, the applicant  states  during  this  period  she  was  given
disciplinary actions, including being placed on  the  control  roster,
but these actions were not mentioned on  the  reports.   This  is  not
consistent with the accusations of biased evaluators who were  out  to
get her.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
16 Aug 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s  submission,  to  include   the
statements of support, we are  unpersuaded  that  the  contested  OPRs
should be removed from her record.   The  applicant’s  allegations  of
reprisal and other harassing actions were found to be  unsubstantiated
and the local IG  dismissed  her  case.   Following  approval  by  the
Secretary of the  Air  Force  Inquiries  Division  (SAF/IGQ)  and  the
Department of Defense Special  Inquiries,  the  applicant’s  case  was
closed.   The  applicant  has  not   presented   convincing   evidence
substantiating  her  allegations  that  the   reports   were   biased,
retaliatory or inaccurate assessments of her  performance  during  the
pertinent rating periods.  With regard  to  the  letters  of  support,
while these individuals are entitled to their opinions, they were  not
in the applicant’s rating chain.  As such, we  do  not  believe  their
personal opinion should  be  substituted  for  those  responsible  for
assessing the applicant’s  performance  during  the  contested  rating
periods.  In our opinion, the applicant was rated  properly  based  on
the evaluators’ perception of her performance at that point  in  time.
Additionally, we found no evidence to indicate that the contested OPRs
were prepared in a manner contrary to the pertinent provisions of  the
governing Air  Force  instruction.   We,  therefore,  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the appropriate  Air  Force  office  and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  that  she  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing and  absent
sufficient evidence to the contrary, 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 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 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01985.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  IG Investigation (withdrawn).
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, undated.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair