RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02298
                                        INDEX CODE:  111.02
  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       COUNSEL:  NONE
                                        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 27  February
2004 through 3 January 2005 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her rater placed  undue  emphasis  on  an  isolated  incident.   An  OPR  is
intended to capture the whole rating period, not  just  a  single  incident.
Her OPR shows she was a superior performer, with the exception  of  the  one
incident.  Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and  Unfavorable  Information  file
(UIF) were removed from her records early; thus the contested OPR, which  is
the only record of the incident, should also be removed.

In support of her request, the applicant submits a  personal  statement  and
copies of her contested OPR, notification of referral  report,  response  to
notification,  LOR,  response  to  LOR,  letter  of  support,   request   to
Evaluation Reports Appeal  Board  (ERAB)  for  OPR  removal,  career  brief,
request for early removal of her UIF, and approval of the UIF removal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database  (MilPDS)  indicates  the  applicant  has  a
Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 15 February 2001 and  a  Total
Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 28 June 2001.  She was  promoted
to the grade of captain, effective and with a date of rank of 28 June  2005.


The following is a resume of her OPR  ratings  commencing  with  the  report
closing 28 June 2002:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      28 Jun 02 (2nd Lt)                       MS
      26 Feb 03                                MS
      26 Feb 04 (1st Lt)                       MS
       3 Jan 05                              Contested Report
       3 Jan 06 (Capt)                    MS
       3 Jan 07                                MS

On 14 February 2005, the applicant was notified of a referral  OPR  for  the
period 27 February 2004 through 3 January 2005.   The  report  was  referred
due to a comment indicating the applicant disobeyed  a  lawful  order  while
deployed for which she received a LOR on 14 December  2004.   The  applicant
acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification,  and  on  14  February   2005,
submitted a response in her own behalf.  On 15 February 2007, the  applicant
submitted an appeal to the ERAB requesting her OPR closing  3  January  2005
be voided.  The ERAB denied the applicant’s request.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denying the  applicant’s  request  to  void  her  OPR
closing 3 January 2005.  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.   In  this  case,  the
evaluators felt it was significant enough to be included  in  her  OPR.   In
addition, there seems to be a  misconception  that  when  an  administrative
action has been removed or removed early, as in this  case,  the  evaluation
report  should  automatically  be  corrected  to  erase  the  administrative
action.  However, this is a false  assumption  that  many  applicants  make.
What they failed to realize is if the  incident  happened,  it  can  not  be
erased as if it did not happen.  It must legally be “set aside”  (deemed  it
never existed).  The rating chain has the sole responsibility  to  determine
whether to use, or not use, the administrative  action  when  preparing  the
performance report.  In this case, the evaluators deemed it relevant  enough
to use and did so.  By doing so, the report is not unjust or incorrect,  and
the only avenue of relief for the applicant  would  be  first  to  have  the
administrative actions “set  aside.”   Until  that  happens,  the  contested
report is accurate as written.

DPPPEP states 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 removal  of
the report from the applicant’s record.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  the
applicant and she failed  to  prove  the  contested  report  was  unjust  or
inaccurate as written.

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  14
September 2007, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an injustice.  After a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of
record, the Board is persuaded that the contested report is not an  accurate
reflection of the applicant’s performance during  the  period  in  question.
Circumstances in this case raise  a  reasonable  doubt  as  to  whether  the
applicant committed the offense that lead to her  LOR,  UIF  and  subsequent
contested OPR.  The Board believes her commander’s  actions  may  have  been
based on his perception of what took place  versus  the  applicant’s  actual
disobedience of a direct order.  Nevertheless, it  is  the  Board’s  opinion
that the rating applicant received in the contested OPR is  disproportionate
to the circumstances of the charged offense  in  comparison  to  her  normal
exceptional performance and accomplishments.  In  fact,  we  note  that  her
current commander chose to remove the applicant’s LOR and UIF early  due  to
her outstanding record.  Therefore, in an effort to offset  any  possibility
of an injustice to the applicant, we recommend the records be  corrected  to
the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to  APPLICANT  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Company   Grade   Officer
Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 27  February  2004
through 3 January 2005 be declared void and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 28 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
            Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-02298 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 7 Aug 07.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.




                                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2007-02298


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:


      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the
Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the
period 27 February 2004 through 3 January 2005 be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from her records.




                                       JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                       Director
                                       Air Force Review Boards Agency