RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03168
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL:  Joseph W. Kastl

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period 14
Jun 01 through 13 Jun 02 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In  an  11-page  brief  of  counsel,  applicant’s  counsel  makes  the
following contentions:

        a.  The applicant’s performance was observed and considered to
be superior by a general officer she worked  directly  under  for  18-
months in the same position that she received the contested OPR.

        b.  Numerous factors triggered the contested OPR she received,
i.e., she had the same responsibility as those senior to her in grade,
she had numerous additional duties, while her contemporaries had none,
she was a woman performing in a traditionalist “man’s world,” her Navy
superior was uncomfortable with her enthusiasm and flair.

        c.  She was placed in  a  “no  win”  situation  due  to  eight
specific challenges:

             1.  She  was  placed  under  the   supervision   of   her
contemporaries  from  other  services  when  she  should  have  worked
directly under the EUCOM Deputy Director.

            2.  She was assigned responsibilities  equivalent  to  her
contemporaries from the other services without the rank to back it up.

            3.  Navy parochialism poisoned the atmosphere against  the
applicant.

            4.  She was cautioned against talking  to  her  Air  Force
chain of command while all other service advisors talked to theirs.

            5.  She was not provided any guidance from her  supervisor
when she sought it on assigned tasks.

            6.  She was cautioned not  to  work  overtime  because  it
would leave the wrong impression.

            7.  Her supervisor was  jealous  of  her  ability  to  get
results.

            8.  She was severely chastised for drafting her OPR.

Counsel provides in-depth discussion of the applicant’s OPR and  gives
a list of specific accomplishments omitted or  treated  cavalierly  in
the contested OPR.

In further support of  the  applicant’s  appeal,  counsel  provides  a
chronology of events during the applicant’s assignment and performance
of duties in the position leading to the contested  report  and  other
key documents.

The applicant also provided a copy of her most recent OPR closing  out
13 Jun 03 and a copy of her most recent Promotion Recommendation  Form
(PRF).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Reserve lieutenant colonel serving on active  duty.
She has three nonselections to the grade of colonel.  A resume of  her
five past OPRs follows:

      Closeout Date               Overall Rating

        13 Jun 99                 Meets Standards
        13 Jun 00                 Meets Standards
        13 Jun 01                 Meets Standards
        13 Jun 02                 Does Not Meet Standards
       *13 Jun 03                 Meets Standards

* Contested  Report.   Marked  “Does  Not  Meet  Standards”  in  three
performance factors in Section V: Leadership, Professional  Qualities,
and Judgment and Decisions.  Report was referred to applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The  applicant
filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, which denied
her request.  The assumption is that evaluation reports  are  accurate
and objective.  The applicant did not provide substantiated proof that
the evaluator was biased or that the report was inaccurate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the  applicant  provides
specific examples that she indicates cause the contested OPR to be  in
violation of Air Force  Instruction  36-2406.   She  points  out  that
information  was  included  in  the  OPR,  which  occurred  after  the
reporting period, and that the necessary  extension  of  the  closeout
date required  to  include  this  information  was  never  done.   The
applicant also points out information which she  believes  should  not
have been included because it was not  mentioned  in  the  performance
feedback she  received.   The  applicant  also  points  out  what  she
believes are contradictions in documents prepared  by  her  rater  and
others in her chain of command.  She opines that these violations make
the contested OPR inappropriate and justifies  removing  it  from  her
record.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a second response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation,  the  applicant
further indicates that the Air Force evaluation failed  to  give  more
than a generic response to her contentions on  propriety  and  equity.
She also points out that paragraph 3 of  the  evaluation  contains  an
illogical comment that since she had successfully skirted the  ire  of
her rating official in the past, he could not be guilty  of  harassing
and unacceptable behavior during the timeframe of the contested OPR.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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  reviewing  the  complete
evidence of record, we find insufficient relevant evidence to  support
the applicant’s contentions as laid out by her counsel.   The  letters
of reference submitted by the applicant,  while  laudatory,  are  from
outside her rating chain and do not provide conclusive  evidence  that
the contested OPR constitutes an error or injustice.  In her  response
to the Air Force evaluation,  the  applicant  opines  that  line  six,
Section IV, “Recalled from TDY assignment…” is  inappropriate  because
this action occurred outside of the reporting period.  It is not clear
to the Board that this is the case.  The  applicant  states  that  the
first indication she had of the termination of her TDY  was    30  Jul
02.  However, we note that the OPR was referred to her on    9 Jul 02.
  The  applicant  challenges  the  appropriateness  of  several  other
statements on the ground that the issues were never mentioned  in  her
feedback session of 5 Mar 02.  AFI 36-2406,  paragraph  2-10,  clearly
states that failure to conduct or document a  feedback  session  “will
not,  of  itself,  invalidate  any  subsequent  performance   report.”
Finally, while the applicant appears to place much of  the  blame  for
the contested OPR on inter-service rivalry, we note that an Air  Force
advisor serving in the grade  of  major  general  signed  off  on  the
report.  While we can agree that the  contested  OPR  appears  out  of
character with other documented performance in the applicant’s record,
we do not find a sufficient basis to  recommend  granting  the  relief
requested.

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   issues   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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
03168 in Executive Session on 19 February 2004, under  the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPB, dated 3 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 8 Jan 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jan 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 15 Jan 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jan 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Feb 04.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair