Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01311
Original file (BC-2003-01311.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01311
            INDEX CODE:  111.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Education Training Report (AF Form 475), rendered for the period 6
April 2000 through 15 December 2000,  be  corrected  by  removing  the
statement in Section III, Other Comments, “CPT Friedman needs to  work
on NCO/officer relationships.”
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The comment is not a fair or truthful characterization of his  ability
to work with NCOs.  During his entire training period,  he  was  never
given any negative written or verbal feedback.

In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement  and
letters of support from former classmates and an NCO  co-worker.   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
1 June 1995.  He is currently serving on active duty in the  grade  of
captain, with an effective date and date  of  rank  of  31  May  1999.
Applicant's OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 31 May 96,
follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              31 May 96      Meets Standards (MS) - 2LT
              31 May 97           MS - 1LT
              31 May 98           MS
              31 May 99           MS - CAPT
               5 Apr 00      Education/Training Report (TR)
            * 15 Dec 00           TR
              18 Jun 02           TR

*  Contested Education/Training Report (TR)
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that
the unsigned memos of support state that they have seen the  applicant
interact with NCOs and never  once  exhibit  unprofessional  behavior.
However, the rater on the Training Report (TR) felt the applicant  did
not interact with NCOs well and felt strongly enough on the  issue  to
mention it on the report.  In accordance with  Air  Force  policy,  an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a  matter  of
record.  The applicant did not provide any  documentation  (signed  or
unsigned) that proved the statement on the report  was  not  accurate.
The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  applicant  on
4 June 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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,   including   the
statements of support, we are unpersuaded that  the  contested  report
should be altered.  No evidence has been presented  showing  that  the
evaluator was unable to render a fair assessment  of  the  applicant’s
behavior at that point in time.  We have reviewed  the  statements  of
support and do not find these unsigned statements provide an  adequate
basis to recommend approval of the requested  relief.   Although  both
the applicant and the class leader were counseled concerning  the  NCO
incident, we note that the evaluator only commented on the applicant’s
need for improving NCO/officer relationships.  Absent is  a  statement
from the evaluator explaining why he felt it was  important  for  this
comment to be on  the  applicant’s  TR.   Additionally,  we  found  no
evidence that the  contested  report  was  prepared  contrary  to  the
governing instruction.  In view  of  the  foregoing,  we  believe  the
contested TR should stand as written.  Therefore, applicant’s  request
to have the contested report amended 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 31 July 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
                  Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01311.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Jun 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jun 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Acting Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03357

    Original file (BC-2003-03357.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 6 February 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. The applicant contends the contested EPR is unjust, she was given an initial feedback but never received a midterm, and she had no indication of substandard performance. We note she received promotion Below-the-Zone during...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03752

    Original file (BC-2003-03752.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03752 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The AF Form 475, Education/Training Report (TR), dated 25 Jun 99, accomplished on him after his attendance to Squadron Officer School (SOS) be included in his officer selection record (OSR) reviewed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01791

    Original file (BC-2003-01791.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01225

    Original file (BC-2003-01225.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied on the basis of timeliness. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03874

    Original file (BC-2003-03874.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The signature date of 28 July 2003 on his AF Form 475 (Education/Training Report), closing 28 March 2003, be changed to an earlier date so that it may be accepted for filing for the CY03A (8 July 2003) (P0503A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). He was wronged by the excessive period of time it took to complete and file his final Training Report (TR) in his Officer Selection Record (OSR); as well as the time it took to update his current duty history after he arrived at the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01731

    Original file (BC-2003-01731.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-01731 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 27 March 2001, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) P0401A and any associated memoranda regarding the referral period be removed from his records and his corrected record be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01526

    Original file (BC-2003-01526.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01526 INDEX CODE: 134.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Air Force Form 475, Training Report, dated 13 September 2001, be voided, a new Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be accomplished and he receive consideration for promotion by the CY02B Major Central Selection Board,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03654

    Original file (BC-2003-03654.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2003-03250

    Original file (BC-2003-03250.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 Jun 93, the applicant’s squadron commander notified her that he was considering whether to vacate the suspended punishment imposed on 15 Mar 93 for the alleged offenses of dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful general regulation. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s requests. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02040

    Original file (BC-2002-02040.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends he did not receive his OSB in time to review it prior to the promotion board. A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE asserts the applicant has not provided any...