RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03774
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 29 May 05
through 1 Mar 06 be removed from his record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Mission Support Group Commander exhibited undue command influence and
coercion over the Mission Support Squadron Commander, forcing her to place
undue emphasis on a single incident that being minor, correctable ORI
findings.
The evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID reviewed this application and recommends denial. Air Force
policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes
a matter of record. When challenging an OPR, it is necessary to have
support from all the members in the rating chain for
clarification/explanation. The applicant has not provided information or
support from everyone in the rating chain on the contested report. The
statements the applicant submitted were from individuals not in the rating
chain for the period of the report.
Furthermore, 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 correction
or removal from the service member’s records. The burden of proof is on
the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested
report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the
knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 28 Jan 11
for review and comment. 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 error or injustice. After careful consideration of
applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find
insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant. Absent
persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled,
appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were
not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
03774 in Executive Session on 13 Apr 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 29 Dec 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03489
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The reason he did not file an appeal through the ERAB is because it would require the documented reversal or amendment of the rater evaluation or written evidence to that fact, and he disagrees with his removal from command and contests the subsequent performance report. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04199
The applicant stated that he has supporting documents classified as "Secret" which took place during the reporting period; however, we are unable to use these documents to base a decision due to the classification level. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration or direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel with a 1 May 06 promotion effective date. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03875
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). While we note the comments from the Air Force OPR indicating the applicant has not substantiated the contested EPR was not rendered accurately by all evaluators at the time, we believe the documentation submitted by the applicant, specifically, the replacement EPR signed in 2009 by all three of the official signatories on the EPR in question, as well as signed memoranda from every member of his chain of command at...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03875
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). While we note the comments from the Air Force OPR indicating the applicant has not substantiated the contested EPR was not rendered accurately by all evaluators at the time, we believe the documentation submitted by the applicant, specifically, the replacement EPR signed in 2009 by all three of the official signatories on the EPR in question, as well as signed memoranda from every member of his chain of command at...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2007-03875
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). While we note the comments from the Air Force OPR indicating the applicant has not substantiated the contested EPR was not rendered accurately by all evaluators at the time, we believe the documentation submitted by the applicant, specifically, the replacement EPR signed in 2009 by all three of the official signatories on the EPR in question, as well as signed memoranda from every member of his chain of command at...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05019
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05019 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Air Force (AF) Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 19 May 08 through 18 May 09, be declared void and removed from his records. Furthermore, the applicant has provided no evidence to show that the referral comment on...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01145
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01145 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicants request to void the contested EPR indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the contested FA...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04654
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04654 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a closeout date of 28 May 01 be removed from his records. The applicant provides letters of support from his rater and additional rater; however, he has not provided a statement from the reviewer. The DPSID...