RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03160
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
            COUNSEL: RAYMUNDO LUEVANOS

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 APR 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    Her Officer Performance Report, (OPR) closing  out  on  18 January
2000, be voided and removed from her records.

2.    She be awarded a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for her  tour  in
Korea.

3.    She be given Special Selection Board (SSB)  consideration  by  the
Calendar Years 2001B, 2002A,  2002B,  2003A,  2004B,  2005A,  and  2006A
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection  Boards  (CSB),  with  a  corrected
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and the Defense Meritorious Service  Medal
(DMSM) citation closing out on 12 June 2001,  included  in  her  Officer
Selection Record (OSR).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She did not receive a medal for her tour in  Korea,  Section  VI,  lines
eight and nine of the OPR are  inaccurate  and  the  DMSM  citation  was
missing from her OSR.

In support of her request, the applicant submitted a personal statement,
a series of emails, a copy of the DMSM Citation, a copy of her OSB and a
Board Discrepancy Report.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade
of major.

She was nonselected for promotion by the  CY01B,  CY02A,  CY02B,  CY03A,
CY04B, CY05A and CY06A Lieutenant Colonel CSBs.

On 24 October 2006, she was informed by AFPC/DPPR that her request to be
awarded an MSM should go back to the approval authority  and  allow  for
administrative relief. (Exhibit B)

The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent OPR profile:

                   PERIOD ENDINGS            OVERALL EVALUATION

                     2 Mar 98                MEETS STANDARDS(MS)
                     2 Mar 99                       MS
                    18 Jan 00                       MS
      18 Jan 01                       MS
      18 Jan 02                       MS
      18 Jan 03                       MS
                    18 Jan 04                       MS
                    18 Jan 05                       MS
                    18 Jan 06                       MS



*Contested Report

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPO  states  in  part,  the  applicant
failed to provide any supporting evidence proving the report was written
inaccurately.  An evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the
rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered.  Once a  report
is accepted for file, only strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants
correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of  proof
is on the applicant.  She 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  of  the
contested OPR.  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  applicant  provided   numerous   emails   showing   her   different
accomplishments.  However, she fails to realize the rater is  given  the
responsibility to rate on the member as they deem  appropriate.   It  is
the rater’s responsibility to rate  the  ratee’s  performance,  not  the
ratee.   In  fact,  AFI   36-2402,   paragraph   3.2.1.,   under   rater
requirements, requires the rater to assess and document what the officer
did, allows the rater to ask  the  rater  for  input  while  prohibiting
raters from having the ratee draft  their  own  evaluation.   While  the
applicant provided input to her rater, the rater was under no obligation
to utilize the input.  The ratee did not provide any supporting evidence
to prove the report contains any inaccurate information.

Although the citation for the DMSM was missing from the applicant’s  OSR
for the CY01B board, the board members were aware of the  decoration  as
it was  listed  on  her  OSB  and  thus,  factored  into  the  promotion
evaluation.  Additionally, her OPR closing 18 January 2001, talks  about
her successful period as a chief in a program and  budget  division;  as
such, the board members took into consideration this accomplishment.

The DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  and
her counsel on 5 February 2007 and on 9 February 2007,  for  review  and
comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been  received
by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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  contends  that  her
records were not fairly assessed because lines eight and nine of the OPR
closing out on 18 January 2000 are inaccurate, she  did  not  receive  a
medal for her tour in Korea and the DMSM citation was missing  from  her
OSR, which prevented her record from  being  fairly  considered  by  the
promotion boards.  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.  Other than her own assertion, the  applicant
has failed to provide evidence that the OPR in question was not rendered
in good faith by her evaluators and has also failed to  provide  support
from  the  rating  chain  on  the  contested  OPR.   In  regard  to  the
applicant’s request for award of the MSM  for  her  tour  in  Korea,  no
evidence was presented to indicate she was officially recommended for or
awarded the MSM.  Further,  although  the  citation  for  the  DMSM  was
missing from her OSR for the P0501B board, the board members were  aware
of the decoration as it was listed on her OSB and thus factored into the
promotion process.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,
we agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility  and  adopt
its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice in this matter.

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(s)  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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
03160 in Executive Session on 30 April 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

            Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 29 Jan 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Feb 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 07.







                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair