RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01301
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Oct 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 12 Jan 03
to 11 Jan 04 be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OPR contained erroneous content and was not written by her
designated rater.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided documentation
pertaining to her Inspector General (IG) complaint, her appeal under
the provisions of AFI 36-2406, and other documents concerning the
matter under review.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 12 Jan 05. Her Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 24 Apr 90 and her
Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) is 12 Jan 01.
Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
11 Jan 02 Meets Standards
11 Jan 03 Meets Standards
* 11 Jan 04 Meets Standards
11 Jan 05 Meets Standards
* Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP recommended denial indicating that while the applicant
contends “erroneous” content was documented in her performance report,
nothing was provided substantiating the report did not contain factual
information and was not an accurate assessment when originally
rendered. Based on Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS)
documentation, it appears the correct rating chain wrote and indorsed
the contested report. No credible supporting documentation was
provided proving the applicant’s commander discarded the report
written by her rater (Mr. L---) and then tasked the orderly room to
alter the dates of supervision to appear as if someone else had been
her rater.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed
response. In summary, she indicated she feels very strongly she has
been wronged and is deeply appreciative of the opportunity to have, in
her view, the erroneous and negative report removed from her records.
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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. Applicant’s complete submission
was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted. However,
we find no evidence which has shown to our satisfaction the applicant
was inappropriately evaluated, her evaluators were unable to render a
fair and honest assessment of her performance and promotion potential,
or that the contested report had its basis in factors other than the
applicant’s performance. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive
evidence the contested report was not an accurate assessment of her
performance at the time it was rendered, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR)
and conclude that no compelling basis exists to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-01301 in Executive Session on 17 Aug 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 31 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 28 Jun 05.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01301A
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. By letter, dated 13 Oct 05, the applicant requests reconsideration of her request, and provides an initialed statement from her purported supervisor, who was not included as a member of the rating chain on the contested OPR. She asserts this individual was her reporting official from 12 Jan 03 until his departure in Sep 03. JOSEPH G. DIAMOND Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-01301 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00355
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
In support of her request, applicant submits a revised application, with a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, the AFI 36- 2401 application and the decision, a statement from the rater, SAF/IGQ addendum to the USAFE/IG report of investigation, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions (Exhibit A). DPPPA stated that the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 31 Mar 94, that was subsequently removed by the...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPP recommends the application be denied. DPPP stated that the fact the applicant met a faculty board is not the failure of an intended personnel action. The HQ AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at...
DPPP stated that the letter from the rater supports removal of the contested OPR - it does not support replacing the report with a reaccomplished version. The rater's letter does not substantiate the report, as written, is invalid. After reviewing the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the applicant may not have been fairly evaluated by the additional rater/reviewer at the time the report was rendered.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01997 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 2 Apr 04 through 31 Aug 04 be declared void and removed from his records, and the attached reaccomplished OPR be...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00950 INDEX CODE: 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 12 Jul 96 through 11 Jul 97 be removed from her records and she be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. In...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01816
By letter, dated 29 Nov 05, the applicant requested that his “Do Not Promote” PRFs also be removed from his records, and that he be provided SSB consideration based on the new information obtained from a CDI, which is attached at Exhibit E. By electronic mail (e-mail), dated 5 Dec 05, the applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration, which is attached Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL 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...