RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02119
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 31
July 2001 through 12 June 2002 be corrected to reflect:
a. Section III Job Description - 1. Duty Title should
read Wing Flight Safety Officer/KC 135R/T Instructor Pilot.
b. Section III Job Description - 2. Key, Duties, Tasks,
and Responsibilities last line should read Leads Operational Risk
Management (ORM) program. Maintains currency as a mission-ready KC-
135R/T Instructor Pilot.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His 12 June 2002 OPR should be corrected to change his duty title and
add text in the last line of Section III, Key Duties, Task, and
Responsibilities.
He further states that his OPR references several times about his
qualifications as an instructor pilot and also recommends he should be
upgraded to a Evaluator Pilot.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.
The applicant did not appeal the contested OPR under the provisions of
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports.
Applicant’s OPR profile as a captain is listed below.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
2 May 00 Meets Standards
30 Jul 01 Meets Standards
*12 Jun 02 Meets Standards
*Contested OPR
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant has not provided any evidence to
support his request to have his duty title changed and to add text to
his 12 June 2002 OPR, nor has he provided any documentation from his
chain of command supporting that the contested report should be
changed. Based on the evidence provided, AFPC/DPPPE recommends the
applicant’s request be denied.
A complete of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
28 August 2003, for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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, we are unpersuaded that
relief should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the
office of the Air Force. The applicant has not provided any
persuasive evidence to support his request to have his duty title
changed and to add text to the last line of the OPR in question. Nor
has he provided any documentation from his rating chain supporting the
report be changed. We therefore adopt the Air Force's rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an
injustice. Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2003-02119 in Executive Session on 7 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Officer Selection Brief.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 23 Aug 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, 5 Sep 03.
ROBERT S. BOYD
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03826
He receive supplemental consideration for promotion by the CY99A Central Major Selection Board. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant alleges his DAFSC, Duty Title, Key Duty description and the first bullet of Section IV of his PRF that was reviewed by the central selection board were incorrect. The applicant has not provided any documentation that the correct duty information was not considered during the PRF process.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03726
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03726 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In two separate applications, applicant makes the following requests: The Duty Title on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30 Jul 98 through 1 Apr 99 be corrected to reflect...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03930
The orderly room provided a memo stating the applicant initiated corrective action on or about 25 May 05 and that MILPDS was updated correctly, however, AMS did not read the update. The applicant had from 26 May 05 – 6 Jul 05 to review his records and ensure the duty title was updated correctly. Although the duty title “Assistant Chief of Flight Safety/C-130H Instructor Pilot” was not correctly reflected on his OSB, it was correct on his 31 May 05 OPR and therefore available to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02881
He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 February 2002, having been selected for promotion to that grade by the CY00A selection board. In view of the statements provided by the evaluators of the contested report, and having no basis to question their integrity, we conclude that the applicant’s records should be corrected to substitute the reaccomplished OPR, closing 26 May 1999, for the one currently in his...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00352
The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAO recommended the OPR remain in the applicant’s record. In a letter dated 18 January 2005[sic], counsel for the applicant requested the applicant’s case be reopened (Exhibit L). In reference to the number of days of supervision, the applicant claims that the rater of the contested report was TDY on numerous occasions.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03931
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03931 INDEX CODE 131.01 111.01 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 9 Feb 01 and the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 2002A (CY02A) Major Central Selection Board be removed from his records and he be promoted to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04042
As well, the senior rater should not have waited until the June 1999 OPR to determine he did not have all the information for his PRF. He was selectively chosen for the position he was holding and the senior rater was unaware of the records review process and his selection for the position by his senior staff. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01840
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, his counsel's statement, and documentation associated with his FEB. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The USAFE/A3 evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel responded that there was no substantial evidence the applicant failed to prepare for his flying training. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03871
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO states that each officer eligible for a CSB receives an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to convening of the board which contains the same data that will appear on the OSB at the central board. The instructions specifically state, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03178
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03178 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 5 May 2001 through 4 May 2002 be declared void and replaced with the revised OPR and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY02B Central...