RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03376
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  DAVID P. PRICE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 JUN 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for  the  period  31 July
1998 through 8 June 1999; 9 June 1999 through  8  June  2000;  9  June  2000
through 14 May 2001, be declared void, and removed from her records.

2. Restoration of all pay, allowances, entitlements, rights  and  privileges
affected by the referred OPRs and that she receive Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of captain for  the  Calendar
Years 2000B (CY00B) and 2001C (CY01C) Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reports are an inaccurate assessment of her performance.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 July 1997, the applicant entered active duty (EAD)  in  the  grade  of
second lieutenant  and  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  first  lieutenant
effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 24 June 1999.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
captain by the CY00B (27 May 2000) and the CY01C (27 August  2001),  Captain
Central Selection Boards.




On 31 August 2002, the applicant was honorably released from active duty  in
the grade of first lieutenant under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3207  Non-
Selection, Permanent Promotion.  She served five years, one month,  and  one
day of total active duty service.

OPR profile since 1998, follows:

           PERIOD ENDING              EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  12 Mar 98  Training Report (TR)
                  30 Jul 98  Meets Standards(MS)
               # * 8 Jun 99  MS in all but Job Knowledge
                                     Referral Report
                 * 8 Jun 00  MS in all but Job Knowledge
                             and Judgment and Decisions
                                     Referral Report
              ## *14 May 01  MS in all but Job Knowledge
                             and Judgment and Decisions
                                     Referral Report

* Contested Reports
#Top Report for the CY00B Board
##Top Report for the CY01C Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP  recommended  denial  indicating  the  applicant  received   three
referral reports due to her basic lack in job knowledge.  She  has  provided
numerous letters of appreciation and examples of  accomplishments  completed
during those reporting periods.  However, performance reports are  completed
by the rater based on the rater’s required performance standards,  not  what
the ratee believes should be the standard.  The applicant received  feedback
based on her struggle in the technical career field.  It was no surprise  to
the applicant that she was not meeting her evaluator’s standards.   Further,
the information is not inaccurate  because  the  ratee  disagrees  with  the
information.

An evaluation report is considered to  represent  the  rating  chain’s  best
judgment at the time it is rendered.  They contend that  once  a  report  is
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants  correction
or  removal  from  an  individual’s   record.    The   applicant   has   not
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in  good  faith  by  all
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.







Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate  as  written  when
it becomes a matter of record.  To  effectively  challenge  an  OPR,  it  is
necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain -  not  only  for
support, but also for clarification/explanation.  The applicant  has  failed
to provide any information/support from the rating chain  on  the  contested
OPRs.   In  the   absence   of   information   from   evaluators,   official
substantiation of error or injustice from  the  Inspector  General  (IG)  or
Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate, but not provided in this case.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 January 2006, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D).

In a letter dated 30 January 2006, counsel for the applicant  requested  the
applicant’s case be temporarily withdrawn (Exhibit E).

On 16 February 2006, the  applicant’s  case  was  temporarily  withdrawn  in
accordance with her request (Exhibit F).

In a letter dated 28 February 2006, the  applicant  requested  her  case  be
reopened.  The applicant indicated she gave a 100  percent  effort  to  meet
all  of  her  superiors’  performance  standards,   and   made   significant
contributions to the  Air  Force  and  its  mission.   The  applicant  does,
however, state that the rater’s overall  assessments,  for  the  performance
reports in question, are not consistent with the adverse performance  factor
markings.

The one-line negative assessments in each of  the  performance  reports  are
not substantiated, particularly in comparison to  the  statements  contained
throughout  the  remainder  of  the  reports.    The   impact   on   mission
accomplishment   statements   and   her   significant    achievements    are
insurmountable,  which  describe  an  officer  who  does  possess  knowledge
required to perform duties effectively; strives to improve knowledge;  makes
timely and accurate decisions; emphasizes logic in decision making;  retains
composure in stressful situations; recognizes  opportunities;  and  requires
minimal supervision.

The applicant does not contend the reports were not rendered in good  faith,
but does object to the unsubstantiated adverse comments and marks.



The applicant requests the board  to  also  consider  the  attached  current
performance  review  from  the  Gerald  Champion  Regional  Medical  Center,
Alamogordo, New Mexico.  She desires to serve in the Air Force again.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant  contends  the  contested
reports are an inaccurate  assessment  of  her  performance.   We  note  the
applicant has not submitted any supporting  documentation  from  the  rating
chain of the contested reports indicating their assessment at that time  was
inaccurate and she has failed to provide evidence showing the  reports  were
not an accurate assessment as rendered.  The applicant provided  letters  of
support from individuals outside of the rating chain which are  duly  noted;
however, these individuals were not tasked with  assessing  the  applicant’s
duty performance during the  contested  time  periods.   The  Board  further
notes  the  applicant  received  performance  feedback   worksheets,   which
indicates there was room for improvement  in  job  knowledge.   Further,  in
view of our recommendation regarding the applicant’s request that  the  OPRs
be declared void and removed from her  records  and  that  she  receive  SSB
consideration,  her  remaining  requests  for  restoration   of   all   pay,
allowances, entitlements, rights and privileges  affected  by  the  referred
OPRs  are  moot  issues.   Therefore,  we  agree  with   the   opinion   and
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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  2005-
03376 in Executive Session on 23 May 2006, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:


                 Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  this  application  was
considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 October 2005, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, 17 January 2006.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 January 2006, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 30 January 2006.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 February 2006.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 28 February 2006, w/atchs.




                       CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                       Panel Chair