RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01225
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, prepared for the period
4 Dec 95 through 13 Apr 96, be included as part of his permanent record.
2. It appears he is also requesting that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) lieutenant colonel selection board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The lack of inclusion of the Letter of Evaluation (LOE) in his Officer
Selection Record (OSR) could have had a negative impact on the scoring of
his records. Inclusion could have had a positive impact on his score.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the LOE and his OSR
contents. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was appointed a captain, Reserve of the Air Force, on 9 Jun 89
and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date. He
was progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 98.
He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by the CY02B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which
convened on 12 Nov 02.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. DPPPE states that the AF Form 77 is used by
raters to substitute for missing evaluations, to cover voids in performance
records, and to provide continuation sheets for referral reports. Policy
clearly states that an LOE is used by raters to document performance to be
included on a future OPR. In this case, information from the AF Form 77
was provided to his rater and included in the 27 Mar 96 OPR. There is no
basis to file the LOE and doing so would give him an unfair advantage among
his peers. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied on the basis of timeliness.
If considered on its merits, DPPPO concurs with the opinion of DPPPE and
recommends denial. The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 11
Jul 03 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office
has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 that would warrant corrective action. We
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, we agree with of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility that the standards of Air Force policy were properly applied
in this case and that favorable consideration of the applicant's request
would give him an unfair advantage over his contemporaries. Therefore, we
adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant
has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-
01225 in Executive Session on 13 Aug 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Jun 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03653
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03653 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Dec 01 through 5 Sep 02 be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished OPR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00472
The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reiterated the applicant's contentions, provided a summary of the applicant's career and states in order for a performance report to serve its intended purpose it must correctly reflect a member's performance history. The content of an OPR based on an administrative error, that does not accurately reflect the time period during which the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03654
This information was on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 28 September 2000, which met the CY00A selection board. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO states they reviewed the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE advisory and have nothing further to add. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01917
Her corrected records be supplementally considered by supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) boards for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards. The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR for the CY00A board failed in that her record alone was sent to the MLR for a promotion recommendation. DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01791
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant has not provided any evidence as to what actions he took to inform his senior rater of a possible violation of the AFI. The applicant has not provided any documentation from his senior rater or from the management level review board president (MRLB) in support of his request for special selection board consideration, nor has he provided a new PRF for consideration by...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03686
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03686 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The bottom lines of Section VI and VII of the Officer Performance Report for the period ending 10 August 2001 be corrected to reflect a command recommendation. Based on the evidence provided, they recommend the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03639
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03639 INDEX CODE: 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 April 1999 through 31 March 2000 be removed from his records; Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the CY00A central lieutenant colonel selection...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-02532
The previous directive clearly states that any nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, in-the-primary zone, prior to the applicant receiving a minimum of two OPRs with at least 250 days of supervision, in the grade of major, will be set aside. Counsel further contends that the only appropriate corrective action to be taken in this case is to directly promote the applicant to the grade of lieutenant colonel. In previous consideration of this case it was directed that...