RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2005-00346
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 DEC 2005
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 19 March 1999 through
18 March 2000 be reaccomplished.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In his March 2000 OPR, the rater’s comments are word for word from his
March 1999 OPR. Somehow in the 2000 OPR process, inadvertently his 1999
OPR, Rater Overall Assessment, was transposed to his March 2000 OPR. He
tried contacting the rater but without success.
He was not aware of this error until he was passed over for promotion. It
was brought to his attention from the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center
Promotions office.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his OPRs. His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 1 November 1989
and progressively promoted to the grade of captain with a date of rank of
26 May 1993. The applicant was honorably discharged 1 April 2000 and
transferred to the Air Force Reserve effective 2 April 2000.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
major by the FY02 and FY03 Air Force Reserve Major Selection Boards.
The applicant was discharged from all appointments in the United States Air
Force effective 1 October 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommended denial and stated that the rater’s comments in
section IV of the OPR are copied from the previous report. The applicant
requests the report be rewritten, however, the applicant failed to provide
support from the evaluators. In addition, the applicant failed to provide a
substitute report. The Board cannot direct the rater’s to rewrite the
report. It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact the rater and
request his/her concurrence for the rewrite.
The AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated the 2000 OPR in
question was written after he was separated from active duty and had no way
of knowing what was on his OPR when it was submitted. He did not know of
this mistake until the promotions office was informed and after he was
passed over for major. When he was notified, he tried to contact the
parties involved without much success. He then filed an AF Form 98, which
is an application to the Evaluations Report Appeal Board (ERAB). This
process took some time but was rejected because by that time, he was
already discharged from the Air Force Reserves from being passed over for
major twice. He was told in the ERAB process, you have to be a current
member of the military. Having already been discharged from the Reserves,
an ERAB will not work. So he was advised to file a correction of military
records (AFBCMR).
He still has OPR inputs from his last year of Active Duty Air Force and
copies of Form 73 (mission reports) from every mission he flew his last
year. He can submit a substitute report if needed.
The military has always been a big part of his life. He has three years of
enlisted Active Duty Army, over ten years Active Duty Air Force and two
years in the Air Force Reserves. Hopefully, he can remain and continue his
career in the military and be a productive member in the Armed Forces.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that
the contested report should be reaccomplished. Applicant’s contentions are
duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. While we recognize that the rater’s comments on the OPRs
in question are identical, the applicant has failed to provide the Board
with a statement from the rater, after having been given the opportunity to
do so. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of a 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-2005-00346
in Executive Session on 9 August and 7 December 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 9 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 6 Apr 05.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01917
Her corrected records be supplementally considered by supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) boards for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards. The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR for the CY00A board failed in that her record alone was sent to the MLR for a promotion recommendation. DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999...
Additionally, DPPP states that the applicant’s request for correction was for Section X, Senior Rater, to include the rank and branch of service of the senior rater and in Section IV, line 9 from, “first tour USAF Chaplain” to “second active duty tour.” DPPP recommends denial for an SSB based on the OPR not being available for the CY01A CSB. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03010
However, they do recommend that all of the applicant’s OPRs closing on or after 1 May 01 be corrected to reflect the grade of major and placed on AF Form 707A. Additionally, during discussions with AFPC/DPPPEP on 10 Feb 06, we noted that while the substitute OPRs provided by the applicant have been changed to reference the grade of major, several still contain the same PME recommendations made on the Company Grade reports. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02720
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2006-02720 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 March 2008 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) by the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) (6 Jul 05) (P0505A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01473
Additionally, the applicant filed another request to the ERAB on 19 October 2010 requesting the CY2009C PRF be removed and he be provided SSB consideration. The new PRF resurrects the same performance comments from the voided OPR and resulted in the same effect as if the original OPR and PRF were never removed. The senior rater used the PRF to make an end-run around the OPR process after the ERAB decision to void the evaluators original referral OPR and PRF.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated either his OPR contained material errors, or he was placed at a disadvantage at the promotion board because the OPRs of other individuals contained prohibited comments. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02726
His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 21 May 2001 be replaced with a reaccomplished report. While the majority has no reason to doubt the rater’s sincerity, the Board majority believes the rater’s initial statement that he intended for the report to have a negative connotation more accurately reflects his perception of the applicant’s performance during the contested time period. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD...
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the contested OPR and reaccomplished OPR, a copy of the contested PRF and revised PRF, statements of support from his rating chain and Management Level Review (MLR) President, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The applicant previously appealed the contested OPR and her CY97B (2 Jun 97) Major Board (below-the-promotion zone (BPZ)) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the CY99A (8 March 1999) Central Major Board and any subsequent boards for which the contested report was a matter of record. It is...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03682
As such, DPPP is not convinced the contested report is not accurate as written and they do not support the request for removal and replacement DPPP further states the applicant agrees with the decision that the time to dispute an EPR is before it became a matter of record. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant disagrees with the DPPP and ERAB assessments...