RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01915
            INDEX CODE:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report  (OPR)  for  the  period  1  August  2002  to
15 January 2003 be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her OPR  for  the  above-mentioned  reporting  period  does  not  accurately
reflect her accomplishments.  Additionally, she did not  receive  documented
feedback from her immediate supervisor as required by AFI 36-2406.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a  personal  statement,
expanding and elaborating on  her  contentions,  a  copy  of  the  contested
report, an e-mail request to her supervisor  for  a  copy  of  her  feedback
session MFR, her OPR for the period of 1 August 2001 through 31  July  2002,
OPR inputs to her supervisor, and memorandum from  HQ  AFPC/DPPP  announcing
the Evaluation Report Appeal Board’s (ERAB’s) denial  of  her  appeal.   The
applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates that the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant,  Reserve  of
the Air Force on 27 December  1983.   She  performed  duties  as  a  Reserve
officer until 27  September  1987,  when  she  was  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty in the grade of first lieutenant.  She  was  integrated
into the Regular Air Force on 27 February 1991 and  has  been  progressively
promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective and with  a  date  of
rank of 1 July 2001.

The  following  is  a  resume  of  the  applicant’s  Officer   Effectiveness
Report/Officer Performance Report ratings
commencing with the report closing 2 July 1997, rendered  on  the  applicant
in the grade of major.

 PERIOD ENDING   PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

 02 Jul 97   Meets Standards (MS)
 25 May 98             MS
 21 Apr 99   Training Report (TR)
 09 Aug 00             TR
 31 Jul 01 (Lt Col)               MS
 31 Jul 02             MS
*15 Jan 03             MS
 15 Jan 04             MS

Note:  * Contested OPR.  A similar appeal by the applicant was
         considered and denied by the ERAB on 12 March 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE opines that while the applicant  may
not agree with the verbiage her evaluators chose to document in her  report,
she was not charged with assessing her own  performance;  thus,  making  her
“opinion” of significant accomplishments a  moot  point.   DPPPE  notes  the
applicant’s  contention   of   lack   of   performance   feedback   is   not
substantiated.  As indicated in the ERAB’s 12  March  04  memo,  Table  2.1,
does not mandate feedback  for  (applicant)  during  the  rating  period  in
question.  Rule 2 of that table indicates only initial and midterm  feedback
is required for Lieutenant Colonels.   As  such,  based  on  the  August  02
closeout date of the previous report, the next  required  feedback  was  not
due until approximately February 03.

DPPPE states an evaluation report is  considered  to  represent  the  rating
chain’s best judgement at the  time  it  is  rendered.   Once  a  report  is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants  correction
or removal from an individual’s record.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the
applicant and, in DPPPE’s opinion, she has not substantiated  the  contested
report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based  on  knowledge
available to them at the time.  The mere fact that the  applicant  does  not
agree with the words her evaluators chose to document her  performance  does
not make  their  assessment  inaccurate  or  unjust.   DPPPE  concludes  the
applicant has not provided any documentation to indicate the  assessment  on
the report is inaccurate or  unjust,  but  simply  provides  unsubstantiated
conjecture and her own assessment.  As for the applicant’s  contention  that
she should be provided access to the MFR noted by the rater in  the  report,
DPPPE defers to the ERAB’s recommendation that she take that up  with  local
FOIA authorities.  DPPPE stated that since no  feedback  was  required,  the
applicant’s contentions of not being  allowed  to  review  the  MFR  is  not
germane to this case.  DPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reiterates  her  initial  contentions  and  states  that  her
supervision began on 1 August 2001.  She was not given the required  initial
feedback.  Her feedback session did not occur within the  first  60  (sixty)
days of supervision.

In further support of her request, the applicant provided an excerpted  copy
of AFI 36-2404, Table 2.1 (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant’s   complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and  her  contentions  were  duly  noted.
However, we do not find the applicant’s  assertions  and  the  documentation
presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to  override  the
rationale expressed by the office of primary responsibility (OPR).  In  view
of the foregoing, and in the absence  of  evidence  by  the  applicant  that
would lead us to believe the contested report  is  technically  flawed,  or,
that the evaluators relied  on  erroneous  or  misleading  information  when
preparing the report, we agree with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Accordingly, we have no basis  on  which  to  favorably
consider 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 19 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Frederick R Beaman III Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
                 Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2004-01915

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 04 w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Jul 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 04.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Aug 04 w/atch.




                                   FREDERICK R BEAMAN III
                                   Panel Chair