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