RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01607
            INDEX CODE: 131.00
            COUNSEL: NONE
            HEARING DESIRED: NO

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JAN 09

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report  (OPR)  rendered  for  the  period  1 Jun  99
through 1 Jun 00, be replaced with a corrected OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report fails to include comment referring  to  the  fact  that  she  was
selected as Company Grade Officer of the Quarter three times in  one  rating
period.  When she attempted to have the comments included in  her  Promotion
Recommendation Form  (PRF)  her  wing  commander  refused  to  include  them
because she had no proof she earned the awards.  She has since  spoken  with
former supervisors and had the OPR reaccomplished with letters  stating  the
reasons for the oversight and omission.

In support of her request, applicant provided copies of  the  contested  and
corrected reports and a statement from her supervisory chain.  Her  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
major.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade  of
major by the Calendar Year 2005B (CY05B) Major Central Selection Board,  but
was considered and selected above-the-zone by the CY06B board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.   DPPPEP  states  an  OPR  is  considered  to
represent the rating chain's best judgment at  the  time  it  was  rendered.
Once accepted for file,  only  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary  warrants
correction of removal from a record.  She has  not  substantiated  that  the
OPR was not rendered in good faith by  all  evaluators  based  on  knowledge
available  at  the  time.   She  submitted  a  memo  for  record  that   the
information was not known at the time the report was being drafted,  however
the 1999 award was known by that time and the 2000 award was known prior  to
the closeout of the OPR.  A report is not erroneous or  unfair  because  the
applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection  or  may  impact  future
opportunities.  The simple willingness by evaluators  to  upgrade,  rewrite,
or void a  report  is  not  a  valid  basis  for  doing  so.   Inclusion  of
statements such as those requested by the applicant are  not  mandatory  for
inclusion and their omission does  not  make  the  report  inaccurate.   The
applicant must prove the report is inaccurate  based  on  its  content.   In
addition, the statement "Three CGOQ's in 1 year" is  misleading.   She  only
won two awards, one at squadron level, the second  at  squadron  then  group
level.  The award at group level means  she  won  two  levels  of  the  same
award, not two separate awards.

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  Jul
07 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.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion expressed by 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.   The  applicant  contends  the  contested  report  is
erroneous because it fails to include comments referring  to  her  selection
as Company Grade Officer of the Quarter three times in  one  rating  period.
Of note, is the Air  Force's  contention  that  she  actually  was  selected
twice, winning two levels of the same award.  In  support  of  her  request,
applicant provides a  memo  in  which  her  rater  states  the  awards  were
inadvertently left off the OPR.  Notwithstanding the support  received  from
her rating chain, we are not persuaded  the  contested  OPR  as  written  is
erroneous or unjust.  Numerous tasks and accomplishments are performed by  a
ratee during a 365-day reporting  period.   However,  OPRs  contain  limited
space and not every accomplishment can be mentioned in any  particular  OPR.
Raters are tasked to prepare reports to the best of  their  ability  at  the
time the report is rendered. In our opinion it appears that the rater  wrote
the report to the best of his ability at the time.  We find it  unreasonable
to  believe  the  applicant's  initial  selection  for  the  award  was  not
available to her rater at the time the report was rendered  and  it  appears
that the information he contends was not available at the  time  the  report
was written, was in fact available prior to the report becoming a matter  of
record, yet no effort  was  made  at  the  time  when  it  would  have  been
appropriate, to include the information in the report.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  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 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-2007-
01607 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 07, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 07, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair