RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03713
            INDEX CODE 111.01  111.05
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 13 Mar 01  through
12 Mar 02 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR is unjust in that it does not target progression  and  is  not
reflective or consistent  with  his  duty  performance.  It  does  not
provide recommendations for attending professional military  education
(PME) and future job recommendations, which will  have  a  significant
impact on his promotion opportunity.  He did  not  receive  formal  or
informal feedback  that  his  job  performance  was  not  meeting  his
supervisor’s expectations or would not  warrant  future  PME  and  job
recommendations.  He provides statements attesting, in  part,  to  the
rater’s chaotic management style.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant  was  the  chief  of  web
technology and resources with the Air Force Medical Support Agency  at
Brooks AFB, TX, in the grade of captain. He then was assigned  to  the
10th Medical Operations Squadron at the USAF Academy  (USAFA)  as  the
group practice manager.

The applicant graduated from Squadron Officer School, in residence, in
2001.

He was selected for promotion by the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) major
board, which convened on 2 Oct 02.

The applicant’s recent OPRs reflect the following:

      PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION

        12 Mar 99            Meets Standards (PME)
        12 Mar 00            Training Report
      * 12 Mar 01            Meets Standards (Assignment & PME)
        24 Aug 01            Training Report (Squadron Officer School)
      **12 Mar 02            Meets Standards (No Assignment or PME)
      # 13 Sep 02            Meets Standards (Assignment & PME)

* The rater and the additional rater for the 12 Mar 01 OPR were
  the same as in the contested report.
**Contested OPR.
# Top OPR for CY02B board.

The applicant has not filed a similar appeal under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2401.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the applicant failed to provide any comments  from
anyone within his rating chain.  The applicant was also rated  by  the
same rating chain in the previous year’s  evaluation,  in  which  they
made PME and assignment recommendations.  It  is  clear  that  in  the
applicant’s previous report this rating chain felt that he  was  ready
for continued PME and  assignments;  however,  their  opinion  changed
based on his performance during the rating period 13 Mar 01 through 12
Mar 02.  The applicant failed  to  provide  a  letter  from  his  unit
commander identifying whether feedback was or  was  not  accomplished.
Further, the governing directive indicates that lack of feedback  will
not, of itself, invalidate  any  subsequent  performance  report.  The
applicant should provide evidence that he did not receive feedback and
that its lack directly resulted in his inability  to  meet  or  exceed
standards.  The letters he provided are from individuals  outside  the
rating chain. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends he provided a statement from someone within his
rating chain who he worked with on a  daily  basis  and  documentation
from individuals who were  rated  by  the  same  supervisor.  Although
selected for major on a recent selection  board,  future  boards  will
become more competitive and this OPR will have a significant impact on
his potential selection.

The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 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 the applicant’s submission, a majority  of  the
Board is not persuaded that the contested OPR  should  be  voided.  We
noted the supporting statements provided by  the  applicant;  however,
the Board majority is not persuaded  that  the  omission  of  PME  and
assignment recommendations on the 12 Mar 02  OPR  renders  the  report
invalid. While the rater’s management style may have been perceived as
chaotic by some individuals, the applicant has  not  established  that
either the rater or the additional rater  were  personally  prejudiced
against  him.  In  this  respect,  the  Board  majority  notes   these
evaluators included PME and assignment recommendations in the previous
performance report. Although we cannot determine with  any  certainty,
the possibility exists that their assessment of his potential may have
changed during the contested rating period. Further, contrary  to  the
applicant’s contentions, the contested report indicates he did receive
performance feedback on 22 Oct 01. The applicant has not shown to  the
Board majority’s satisfaction that the report, as written, is in error
or unjust. The  majority  of  the  Board  therefore  agrees  with  the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopts the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed  to  sustain
his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view
of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board
majority finds no compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 17 April 2003 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Altman voted to grant, but he does not wish to submit  a  Minority
Report. The following documentary evidence relating to  AFBCMR  Docket
Number BC-2002-03713 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 Jan 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 03.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                   Panel Chair