Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00248
Original file (BC-2006-00248.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00248
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 Jul 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR)  rendered  for  the  period  16 Jun  04
through 12 May 05, be removed  from  her  records  or  reaccomplished  by  a
different rater.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR was significantly downgraded without any warning, negative  feedback
or counseling sessions.  On her previous OPR, her  rater  rated  her  "#1/10
captains" and  her  subsequent  OPR  was  significantly  worse  without  any
justification.  She  was  provided  feedback  on  10  May  05  but  she  was
reassigned one week later.  The feedback never indicated a  severe  markdown
would happen and the  fact  that  it  was  provided  at  such  a  late  date
precluded her from correcting any deficient behavior.   However,  she  never
received any indication that this was the case.  Further,  applicant  states
the OPR  fails  to  accurately  reflect  the  duties  she  held  during  the
reporting  period  and  the  bullets  completely  ignore   the   significant
contributions she made to the office.

In support of her request,  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  the  contested
report and documentation associated with the preparation of  the  report,  a
copy of her performance feedback worksheet, a copy of  her  OPR  closing  15
Jun 04, and a personnel data  system  printout.   Her  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a first lieutenant  effective  17  May  01  and  was
voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on  that  same  date.   She  has
been progressively promoted to the grade of  captain,  having  assumed  that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 17  Nov  01.   She  is  currently
serving on extended active duty as Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, at Davis-
Monthan AFB, AZ.


The following is a resume of applicant's OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING    OVERALL RATING

            12 May 05        Meets Standards (MS)*
            15 Jun 04             MS
            15 Jun 03             MS
            15 Jun 02             MS

*- Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states every marking on the  feedback
is marked in the middle or slightly to the right.  None of  the  marking  is
marked in the  "needs  little  or  no  improvement"  area.   Therefore,  the
feedback annotates the applicant had room for improvement.   Her  period  of
supervision began on 16 Jun 04.  During her  initial  feedback  session  she
would have received guidance as to her performance and what is  expected  of
her during the initial feedback.  She has failed  to  provide  support  from
her evaluators stating the  report  is  inaccurate.   In  addition,  she  is
requesting  the  report  be  accomplished  by  another  rater.   Raters  are
designated by the commander and cannot be skipped solely for the purpose  of
convenience.  A person cannot choose their own rater; especially  when  they
do not like the outcome of their performance report.  It  is  primarily  the
rater's responsibility to accurately document the  applicant's  performance;
not the applicant's.  It is not reasonable to compare one report covering  a
certain period of time with another report covering a  different  period  of
time.  This does not allow for changes in the ratee's performance  and  does
not follow the intent of the governing  regulation.   She  provided  a  memo
signed on 9 Jun 05 stating someone had spoken with the rater concerning  the
applicant's OPR and that the rater believes the OPR accurately reflects  her
performance.  Therefore, she does not have the support of the rater.

The DPPPEP 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  3  Mar
06 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  The applicant's  contentions  are  duly
noted: however, after thoroughly reviewing  the  documentation  provided  in
support of her appeal, we find no evidence of an error in this case and  are
not persuaded by her uncorroborated assertions that she has been the  victim
of an injustice.  In the rating process, evaluators are required  to  assess
a ratee's performance, honestly and to the best of their ability.  In  cases
of this nature, we do not feel inclined to disturb the judgments  of  raters
absent a strong showing of abuse of  discretionary  authority.   Other  than
her own assertions, evidence has not been presented which would lead  us  to
believe that her rating chain abused their authority.  Therefore,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopts its rationale as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  basis  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 issue  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-2006-
00248 in Executive Session on 11 May 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Donna Jonkoff, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Mar 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02298

    Original file (BC-2007-02298.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPEP states that although the applicant may feel her evaluators have over stressed an isolated incident or a short period of time of substandard performance or conduct, the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential. As of this date, this office has received no response. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-02298 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01686

    Original file (BC-2006-01686.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01686 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPR) for the periods 1 Mar 02 through 28 Feb 03 and 1 Mar 03 through 2 Jul 03 be modified by adding command push and professional military...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03031

    Original file (BC-2006-03031.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He believes his additional rater, one who’s well-versed in writing USAF OPRs, should/would have known excluding the PME recommendation was a clear negative signal to any promotion board, as it is with Navy boards. The performance feedback date is considered an administrative error/correction. The applicant contends he was not provided official feedback and that he believes the lack of a PME recommendation was retribution for his recommendation to the BRAC process.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02652

    Original file (BC-2006-02652.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel replies that they have demonstrated an unequivocal nexus between the senior rater and the contested OPR. Considering the documented demeaning attitude her senior rater had towards women, we find it feasible to believe the applicant’s senior rater may have inappropriately influenced the additional rater’s downgrading of the report in question. NOVEL Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02713

    Original file (BC-2008-02713.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 October 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00777

    Original file (BC-2007-00777.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00777 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 OCTOBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period 30 Jul 2001 thru 29 Jul 2002 be amended or removed from his records. DPPPEP states the applicant did not file an appeal under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204

    Original file (BC-2006-03204.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02524

    Original file (BC-2005-02524.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02524 INDEX NUMBER: 111.00, 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 MAR 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Mar 03 through 19 Mar 04, be removed from his records and he be considered for promotion to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01489

    Original file (BC-2002-01489.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36- 2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. Evaluators should consider each section of the evaluation when determining the final rating of the member. As for the letter from his rater to Major W--- --- RCG/RSC dated 14 Feb 02 that outlined his successful nurse recruiting efforts totally conflicts with the rating in section III of the EPR.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03017

    Original file (BC-2003-03017.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 17 April 2001, the applicant filed an AF Form 1168 (Statement of Suspect/Witness/Complaint) contending that his signature was forged on a notification feedback letter for the EPR closing 5 March 2001. The validity of the document the applicant alleges to have been forged cannot be verified and the applicant has not provided any evidence to substantiate the report was not an accurate of assessment of his performance during the rating period. After reviewing the available evidence, the...