RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00436
INDEX NUMBER: 111.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the
period 2 Apr 02 through 15 Aug 02 be declared void and removed from
his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OPR places undue emphasis on an isolated incident and has been
unfairly prejudicial to his career.
The Wing Commander relieved him of command based on incomplete
information, miscommunication, and flawed legal advice. By the time
it was discovered that the allegations of misconduct against him were
not supported by the facts, he had already been relieved of command.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of his written
response to the referral OPR, numerous character references, a copy of
his efforts to get support from his rating chain for his appeal to the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) and a copy of his failed appeal
to the ERAB.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty as a commissioned officer on 14 Mar
85. He was progressively promoted up to the grade of lieutenant
colonel. With the exception of the contested referral OPR closing 15
Aug 02, the applicant’s OPRs have been rated as “meets standards.”
According to the military personnel data system, the applicant has an
approved retirement effective 1 Oct 04.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant contends that the contested OPR places undue emphasis on an
isolated incident and has been unfairly prejudicial to his career.
Paragraph 1.3 of AFI 36-2406 provides guidance on what raters should
consider in deciding to document adverse information. The rater in
this case decided the adverse information was important enough to
document. Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced
the report; therefore, opinions outside the rating chain are not
relevant. In this case, the rater clearly states that it was the
actions around the applicant’s mistake that caused it in his mind to
be more than a “one mistake” incident.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5
Mar 04 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim
of an error or injustice. We note that the applicant had a clear set
of instructions to follow regarding the vice wing commander’s
signature on the driving revocation form letters. In his response to
the referral OPR, he states that on several occasions the security
forces under his command had found themselves running short or
completely out of letters. Yet, he does not indicate what practical
steps were taken to remedy what appeared to be an ongoing problem,
e.g., requesting an increase in the number of pre-signed letters or
implementing a better monitoring system. Unfortunately, the applicant
made a deliberate and conscious decision to forge the vice wing
commander’s signature on the letters, a direct contravention of
established policy. Based on the wing commander’s decision to relieve
the applicant of command, it would appear he considered the
applicant’s actions egregious. Accordingly, it follows that the
applicant’s conduct should be documented in his OPR. The applicant
opines that the contested OPR “places undo (sic) emphasis on an
isolated incident and has been unfairly prejudicial” to his career.
However, he has failed to provide sufficient evidence or support that
the actions taken in his case were unfair or unwarranted. Therefore,
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 Docket Number BC-2004-
00436 in Executive Session on 29 April 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, Member
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 Feb 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.
JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01785
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement, and a copy of her application to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB), which included a supporting statement from the rater on the contested report. There was no documentation proving that applicant’s evaluators placed any undue emphasis concerning her failure to properly secure classified material as nothing was documented on her report pertaining to the incident. HQ AFPC/DPPPW states the first time the contested...
Additionally, she did not provide any evidence that geographic separation resulted in an unfair evaluation. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Feb 01 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00702
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the ERAB denied the applicant's appeal based on no evidence of coercion-evaluators are encouraged to discuss disagreements before finalizing a report; also, based on the limited space on the form, it is the responsibility of the evaluator to determine what information goes in the report; and lastly, his additional rater provided sufficient rationale as to why a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02352
The applicant concedes that this was a result of an incident involving a staff sergeant, but believes the incident was a misunderstanding and overstressed by his rater. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel responded to the evaluations by indicating that they have demonstrated in their basic filing that the applicant’s rater was biased against him. We note...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00373
The first time the contested report would normally have been considered in the promotion process was cycle 01E6. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Mar 03 for review and comment within 30 days. We are not convinced by the evidence he provided in support of his appeal, that the contested report is not a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01200
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01200 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 11 April 1998 through 10 April 1999 be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00246
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: As a squadron commander, he received an OPR that was inconsistent with prior evaluation due to a personality conflict with the wing commander and lack of feedback from the logistics group commander. The additional rater of the contested report was also the additional rater for the previous OPR closing 16 Mar 00. He also indicated he received no performance feedback.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01510
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration since AFPC/DPPPE has recommended that the contested OPR not be voided. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004- 01510 in Executive Session on...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03320
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not by itself invalidate an EPR.” While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Accordingly, if a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater, where the...