RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00683
INDEX CODE: 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 13 Jun 06
through 12 Jun 07 be amended in Section IV, last line to read
“complete in 4 days,” rather than complete in “4”; and, in Section VI,
first line, to read “30-mbr,” rather than “9-mbr.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There are typographical errors in the contested OPR.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of the
contested report and her separation document.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate that, on 30
Sep 07, she resigned from all appointments in the Air Force under the
provisions of AFI 36-3207 (Completion of Required Active Service).
She was credited with five years and one month of active service.
By letter, dated 14 Apr 08, the applicant was notified by AFPC/DPSIDR
that her request the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf
Cluster (AFCM, 1OLC) be changed to AFCM, 2OLC, has been resolved
administratively.
By letter, dated 21 Apr 08, the applicant was advised the governing
directive requires that Item 8b of the DD Form 214 reflect the
location of the facility where separation documents were prepared.
Since all DD Forms are prepared at Randolph AFB, Texas, no change to
Item 8b of her DD Form 214 was made as she had requested.
A DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, dated 21 Apr 08, indicates that Item 14 of
her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,
was amended to reflect “Ground Defense Command,” rather than “Cround
Defense Command.”
Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
15 Jul 03 Meets Standards
15 Jul 04 Meets Standards
9 May 05 Meets Standards
12 Jun 06 Meets Standards
* 12 Jun 07 Meets Standards
* Contested Report.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends approval of the applicant’s request to correct
her OPR closing 12 Jun 07.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 May
08 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
available evidence, we agree with AFPC/DPSIDEP that corrective action
is warranted regarding the applicant’s OPR closing 12 Jun 07.
Accordingly, we recommend that her records be corrected as set forth
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 (OPR), AF IMT 707B, rendered for the period
13 Jun 06 through 12 Jun 07 be amended in Section IV, last line, to
read “complete in 4 days,” rather than complete in “4”; and, in
Section VI, first line, to read “30-mbr,” rather than “9-mbr.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2008-00683 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 08, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 21 Mar 08,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 08.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2008-00683
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 , be corrected to show that the Company Grade
Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF IMT 707B, rendered for the period
13 June 2006 through 12 June 2007 be, and hereby is, amended in
Section IV, last line, to read “complete in 4 days,” rather than
complete in “4”; and, in Section VI, first line, to read “30-mbr,”
rather than “9-mbr.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02140
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02140 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.09 COUNSEL: RICHARD V. STEVENS HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2005B (CY05B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) be declared void and removed from his records, and a reaccomplished...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01852
The report was marked down in one area, “How well does ratee comply with standards?” Her EPR profile reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 03 5 15 Jan 04 5 Her EPR profile continues: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 15 Jan 05 5 16 Jul 05 5 16 Jul 06 5 **16 Jul 07 4 ** Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial and states in part, that since the applicant did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01941
She was removed from that profile long enough in the spring of 2008 to delay her promotion to colonel and placed back on the identical profile in the summer of 2008 and ordered to meet a medical evaluation board. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/DPO recommends the applicants 2008 Training Report, Blocks 2 and 3, be changed to read meets standards in professional qualities and meets standards in Physical Fitness with PFT score of...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04126
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04126 INDEX CODE: 136.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be considered by the Calendar Year 2008A (CY08A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) (P0608A) (12 May 08) with his Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 11 Jul 07 through 1 May 08, along...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03956
________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicants request to reaccomplish his 10 Jun 06 OPR, his 15 Dec 06 OPR, and his RRF for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping Board. However, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, and if directed by the AFBCMR, they would agree to changing the word shows to showed, on the Dec 06 OPR; however, whether the change is made or not, it does not make the report...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02792
Specifically, on 16 Oct 06, he was given a profile that stated he was not world-wide deployable. AFPC/DPSIDEP indicates they have reviewed the applicant’s request for removal of the contested EPR and found no evidence the report was in error or unjust. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given an LOR for being negligent in the performance of his duties as an NCO, which was the basis for the referral EPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02298
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. As of this date, this office has received no response. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2007-02298 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03421
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and copies of his contested OPR, statements from his accuser, and letters of support from his rating chain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 30 October 1997. DPSIDEP states the contested report contains accurate information that was known to the evaluators at the time the report was written.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00890
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response and additional documentary evidence which are attached...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01832
The only reference to the DUI is in the referral letter, which can be corrected to match the OPR upon receipt of verification the DUI charges were dropped. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded the contested report is in error or unjust. Moreover, he has not provided evidence to show the DUI charges were in fact dismissed, or that he was not convicted of the DUI in question.