RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-04756
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period
3 June 2009 through 6 October 2009 (Ratee acknowledgement on
10 December 2009), be voided and removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His 6 October 2009 OPR was unjust due to the fact that it did not
conform to the Air Force Instruction (AFI) governing officer and
enlisted evaluations because it was subjective, and failed to
substantiate conduct that fails to meet Air Force leadership
standards. These inequities adversely affected the fair
execution of the OPR process. In addition, the OPR is unjust
because it is inconsistent with extensive informal leadership
feedback.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the
contested OPR; and, letters of support and appreciation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was
released from active duty effective 31 May 2010 and voluntarily
retired in the grade of colonel (O-6) effective 1 June 2010. He
served 24 years and 3 days on active duty.
According to a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI), dated
8 October 2009, the applicant was admonished and administratively
relieved of his position as the 11th Wing Commander, Bolling Air
Force Base, District of Washington, effective 6 October 2009, as
a result of allegations of misconduct. He received a referral
OPR for the period 3 June 2009 through 6 October 2009, which
indicated he did not meet standards.
The applicant provided a rebuttal to the Vice Chief of Staff
(AF/CV) in response to the referral OPR; however, the AF/CV
concurred with the raters evaluation.
The following is a resume of the applicants OPR profile:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION
9 Jun 00 (Lt Col)) Meets Standards (MS)
9 Jun 01 MS
3 Jun 02 MS
2 Jun 03 Education/Training Report
2 Jun 04 MS
2 Jun 05 MS
2 Jun 06 (Col) MS
2 Jun 07 MS
2 Jun 08 MS
2 Jun 09 MS
6 Oct 09* Does Not Meet Standards
* Contested report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPO recommends denial. DPO states that when the applicant
was given a referral OPR, he was given ample time to respond to
the report as prescribed by AFI 36-2406. He appealed to the Vice
Chief of Staff, who concurred with the raters decision to mark
Does Not Meet Standards; therefore, making it a referral OPR.
Although the applicant says the referral report was unjust
because all the previous feedback was positive and reassuring,
the rater lost confidence in his ability to lead sometime after
that particular feedback was given.
DPO indicates that with regard to the OPR being unjust because it
was inconsistent with extensive informal leadership feedback,
specifically, no formal feedback was ever conducted or
documented, the AFI states, A raters failure to conduct a
required or requested feedback session, or document the session
on a Performance Feedback Worksheet, will not, of itself,
invalidate any subsequent performance report.
The complete DPO 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 11 March 2011, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit
D). 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 an 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 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.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence showing the contested
report is an inaccurate depiction of his performance during the
rating period in question, we find no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2010-04756 in Executive Session on 8 September 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04756:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Dec 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPO, dated 7 Jan 11, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00883
Additionally, the applicant was given 10 days to comment on the report and informed he could appeal the report under AFI, 36- 2401, Correction of Airman and Officer Evaluation Reports. The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2007-00883 in Executive Session on 19 July 2007, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 02660
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicants counsel states there is no evidence regarding DPSIDs claim that the TACON commander relinquished control to the ADCON commander to perform supervisory duties over the applicant. According to AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction Of Military Records, paragraph 4.1., an applicant has the burden of providing...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05413
On 7 Mar 11, the applicant was removed from command due to a loss of confidence by his rater and received a command directed referral performance report. As a result of the UCA, his rater issued him a Letter of Counseling (LOC). Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record, and is a representation of the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01268
On 23 October 2006, his commander directed a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) be conducted to investigate allegations of ineffective leadership and a detrimental command climate in the applicant’s squadron. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded stating the CDI was not the reason for his relief of command. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDED...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00787 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 11 Oct 12, be declared void and removed from her records. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00787
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00787 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) dated 11 Oct 12, be declared void and removed from her records. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01025
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01025 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 OCT 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 27 Mar 03 through 26 Mar 04 be removed from his records and declared void. There may be occasions when feedback was not provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03320
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states, “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session does not by itself invalidate an EPR.” While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not necessarily exist. Accordingly, if a personality conflict existed between the applicant and the rater, where the...
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested report does not meet Air Force standards for a valid referral report and no performance feedback, contrary to information included in the OPR, from the rater was given stating he was performing below standards. After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant’s performance was based on factors other than his actual performance of duties. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04560
In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of his referral OPR and rebuttal, FEB Findings and Recommendations and various other documents associated with his request. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 2 Sep 14, a copy of the Air...