RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02809
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 MARCH 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 7 May 2001
through 6 May 2002 be removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The referral OPR was put in his file for record and signed by his reviewer
and additional rater prior to his receipt of the referral OPR. He was not
allowed to rebut the referral OPR.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his OPR for the
period 10 October 2000 to 6 May 2001 and a copy of his referral OPR for the
period 7 May 2001 through 6 May 2002 and pertinent referral documents. The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a Reserve officer currently assigned to the Inactive
Status List Reserve Section effective 28 February 2006 in the grade of
captain with a date of rank and effective date of 5 May 1996. The Military
Personnel Data System indicates he received three Officer Performance
Reports. The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
06 May 03 MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
*06 May 02 DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS
06 May 01 MS
* - Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB recommends denial. DPB states the referral package initiated 18
February 2003 was not included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR). The
applicant's letter dated 27 March 2003 acknowledges the referral OPR and
indicates his intention was to respond to the referral OPR by initiating a
request for an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB). ARPC/DPB advises
there is no documentation to verify the applicant submitted an ERAB appeal
requesting correction or removal of the referral OPR. A second referral
package was initiated on 5 February 2004 and is included in his OSR and was
processed in accordance with the appropriate regulations. The ARPC/DPB
complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
October 2006 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 error or injustice. After reviewing all of the evidence
provided, we are not persuaded that the contested Officer Performance
Report (OPR) is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance and
demonstrated potential for the period in question. We have noted the
applicant’s contentions that the referral OPR was put in his Officer
Selection Record prior to his receipt and rebuttal of the referral OPR.
However, while the applicant may believe this is the case, the evidence of
record reflects he acknowledged receipt and intended to respond to the
referral OPR. In view of this, we find it difficult to believe that the
applicant never had the opportunity to rebut the contested OPR. Therefore,
in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, or showing that the
information in the report is based on factors other than his performance,
we are unable to conclude that the report was erroneous, unjust, or
technically flawed. Accordingly, in the absence of such evidence, we find
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-2006-02809
in Executive Session on 28 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Cathlynn B. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
02809 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 4 Oct 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Oct 06.
CATHLYNN B. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02809
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommended denial noting that the applicant filed an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) request, which was denied. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 26 Sep 03 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01781
There was only one letter of counseling and no other supporting documentation of the alleged issues which resulted in the referral report. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant has provided no evidence to indicate the report of her military performance during the rating period was inaccurate. We considered the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of her case;...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01218
The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he received dated 9 Feb 01 be removed from his OSR. The letter of rebuttal that he wrote to the referral OPR was not included in his personnel file and the OPR rendered on him closing 22 Feb 02 was not included in his OSR for the FY03 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened in Jun 02. However it is not clear as to the date the applicant’s response to the Referral OPR was included in the file.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03068
The applicant’s nomination package for the FY06 LTC PV Selection Board was received by HQ ARPC on 29 Apr 05. Review of the nomination package determined the applicant did not meet one of the criteria for PV consideration, i.e., having at least 50 credit points for a year of satisfactory federal service during the last full R/R year. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00088
On 1 April 2004, the AFBCMR considered and, by a majority vote, recommended approval of applicant's request for removal of the OPR, closing 10 February 2002, LOCs, LOA, UIF, and all references thereto, from his records and SSB consideration, with his corrected record. As to the Board’s previous decision, DPB indicates that HQ ARPC complied (all available references to the LOC, LOA, UIF and the OPR were removed from the applicant’s record), and awarded SSB in lieu of the FY03 and FY04 Line...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01323
After the close-out of his OPR and long after he was barred from reserve status, his Top Secret with special access clearance was renewed to include four “compartments.” His former chain of command never notified the Security Forces of adverse action as required if they could substantiate his alleged abuse of authority. In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the referral OPR, rebuttal to the draft OPR, his previous OPR, a legal review by his defense counsel, an e-mail...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00258
In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel record, which include performance reports, Air Force Forms (AF) IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, as well as letters of support from his current rating chain. The complete ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In support of his request the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02321
ARPC/DPB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and stated he feels he has been discriminated against regarding being promoted to major based on a disease (alcoholism) that he initially contacted [sic] while at pilot training. His performance on his two referral OPRs was a result of alcohol abuse. He did not realize at the time what this...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03883 INDEX CODE: XXXXXXX COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 6 Dec 96 through 1 Jul 97 be expunged from his records. The applicant contends that the officer performance...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03270
He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the U0508A board by a Special Selection Board (SSB). His OPR did not make it to file prior to the convening of the promotion board; therefore, his record was incomplete and unjustly portrayed his career performance and accomplishments. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that relief is not warranted in this case and the applicant has not provided evidence...