RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01890
INDEX CODE: 111.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The last bullet in section VI of her Officer Performance Report (OPR)
rendered for the period of 24 January 2004 through 9 January 2005 be voided
from her records.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Pregnancy was the reason for duties not involving flying (DNIF) and is an
unjust statement. Her rater did not address this statement with her prior
to writing the OPR.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested
report and an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on 29 May 2002 and
was progressively promoted to the grade of captain having assumed that
grade effective and with a date of rank of 29 May 2006.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
6 Mar 08 MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
6 Mar 07 MS
6 Mar 06 MS
9 Jan 05 MS (Contested Report)
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the Evaluation Reports
Appeals Board (ERAB) reviewed her request and recommended denial. It
appears she is under the assumption that because she was pregnant, the
mentioning of being DNIF is unjust. Unfortunately not; the fact is, she
was DNIF; the reason why does not matter, a male counterpart has no
exceptions; why would there be for pregnancy. Now had the report mentioned
that she was DNIF due to pregnancy, she would have a viable reason to
appeal, because specific medical information should not be discussed in an
evaluation. Unfortunately for her, the report does not mention she was
pregnant. She also contends that her rater did not discuss the statement
with her before the report became a matter of record. Unfortunately, the
rater was not required to discuss the content of the report with her, and
by not doing so did not violate Air Force policy. In fact the rater is
prohibited in providing a copy to the ratee until the report becomes a
matter of record. Furthermore, the content of the report is at the
discretion of the rater and not the ratee. The report is acceptable as
written. The report contains no errors, did not violate policy and is not
unjust. In fact it would be an injustice to her male counterparts to have
the statement removed since there are no exceptions as to when you can and
cannot mention DNIF in an evaluation.
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_______________________________________________________________
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 11 July
2008 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).
_______________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. We took careful notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of 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. We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the
contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her demonstrated
potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained
in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing
instruction. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
_______________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of 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 BC-2008-01890 in Executive
Session on 28 August 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 23 June 2008.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 July 2008.
WALLACE F. BEARD JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02194
Unfortunately, in this case, she did receive an initial feedback, and as explained in the rater’s statement the midterm feedback was not accomplished due to her deployment; however the rater states he did provide verbal feedback. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25 July 2008 for review and response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01454
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 the applicant on 11 July 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. In the rating process, each evaluator is required to assess a ratee’s performance, honestly and to the best of their ability. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04085
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04085 INDEX CODE: 111.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 1 April 2004 through 26 February 2005 and his P0505A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be voided and removed from his records. DPSIDEP states if the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02430
Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered for the P0507B promotion board be replaced with the PRF she provided. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states since her PRF did not contain information from her OPR a new PRF was written to reflect the information in the OPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01364
The referral EPR should have been accomplished at the time he received his Article 15, Nonjudicial punishment, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in July 2007. DPSIDEP states it appears the applicant wants them to believe that the referral report was not directed until January 2008, after receiving the December 2007 EPR. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
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-2008-02422
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested OPR, a copy of the reaccomplished report, AF IMT 709, Promotion Recommendation, and documentation associated with his Evaluation Reports Appeal board (ERAB) submission. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY07B (27 November 2007), Lieutenant Colonel CSB. Unfortunately for the applicant however, a December 2007 close-out date made the report ineligible...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04455
Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 13 Sep 10 to 12 Sep 11 be included in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-04455 in Executive Session on 16 Aug 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 11, w/atchs...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03453
He denies that he fraternized or engaged in an unprofessional relationship with either his spouse or the spouse of an enlisted member. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. JA has thoroughly reviewed the CDI at issue, and finds no legal deficiency to support applicant’s argument that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against him.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02713
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachment, 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 October 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...