RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01781 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period 
22 March 2009 – 31 January 2010 be removed. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The rater’s overall assessment states that she was counseled 
multiple times during the rating period for issues related to 
integrity and professional behavior. However, the alleged 
issues for which the counseling was administered were unfounded 
and unsubstantiated. Further, she contends that none of the 
alleged issues which caused her OPR to be downgraded were 
actually done. This was merely an illegal tactic to get rid of 
her from the unit. There was only one letter of counseling and 
no other supporting documentation of the alleged issues which 
resulted in the referral report. 

 

In her personal statement, the applicant notes the OPR was 
flagged at the personnel section because there was no 
justification for the rating and further explained the 
circumstances which led to the incidents causing her OPR to be 
referred. She was trying to do her job, look out for her 
people, and received letters of commendation and awards during 
the period in question. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; several character reference letters; email 
correspondence with the Reserve Promotion section; Evaluation 
Report and Appeals Board (ERAB) package and decision; copies of 
the citation for the Air Force Achievement Award; signed 
reports closing on the same date, her NGB Form 22, Report of 
Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with her 
20 Jan 11 separation from the Air Nation Guard (ANG), and other 
supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving in the grade of major, received a 
referral report for the period of 22 Mar 09 through 31 Jan 10. 

The applicant separated from the ANG on 20 Jan 11, and was 
transferred to the Air Force Reserve, effective 21 Jan 11. 

 

The applicant filed an appeal to the ERAB; however; on 
22 Feb 11, her appeal was denied. 

 

 

The applicant’s OPR profile of the last ten reports follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 21 Mar 02 Meet Standards (MS) 

 21 Mar 03 MS 

 21 Mar 04 MS 

 21 Mar 05 MS 

 21 Mar 06 MS 

 21 Mar 07 MS 

 21 Mar 08 MS 

 21 Mar 09 MS 

 #31 Jan 10 Referral 

 20 Jan 11 MS 

 

# Contested Report 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air 
Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPB recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant has 
provided no evidence to indicate the report of her military 
performance during the rating period was inaccurate. 

 

A basic assumption is that evaluation reports are accurate and 
objective when written. A report evaluates performance during a 
specific period and reflects performance, conduct, and potential 
at that time, in that position. Ratings are not erroneous 
because they are inconsistent with other ratings received: The 
applicant did receive non-referral OPRs from the same 
organization in the two years prior to the one closing 
31 Jan 10. 

 

Strong evidence must be provided by the applicant to overcome a 
report's presumed validity. The applicant has not provided any 
information or documentation that her military performance was 


anything other than as portrayed in the OPR. She has provided 
information that she was awarded outstanding ratings in her 
civilian position; however, one does not translate into the 
other. Both jobs, while important, have different requirements 
based on the missions of the organizations in question. 

 

The complete ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In her response the applicant notes that compliance with AFI 36-
2406 is mandatory. She indicates that the contested OPR did not 
comply with specific requirements in the AFI. Her unit’s 
failure to comply with requirements resulted in total 
miscommunication and the down-rating of the contested report. 
Further the negative statements in the report lack detail which 
also does not comply with AFI 36-2406. The applicant also 
points out other areas she believes the contested report fails 
to comply with the governing directive and provides her 
explanation/defense of the allegations contained in the 
contested report. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We note that 
the applicant initially indicated that the allegations referred 
to in the contested report were not accurate. After having the 
opportunity to review the Air Force Reserve evaluation and its 
opinion, the applicant now asserts that the contested report was 
in violation of the governing instruction due to the lack of 
required feedback, non-specific/vague comments about her 
behavior and whether or not the staff judge advocate (SJA) or 
the military personnel flight (MPF) was consulted. We 
considered the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of her case; however, other than her own assertions we 
found no evidence to substantiate her claim that the alleged 
incidents which led to the contested report were unfounded. In 
addition, we note that, based on the governing instructions, 
while feedback is important and required, the lack of feedback, 
in and of itself, does not invalidate a report. Further, while 


the applicant may disagree, we are not convinced that the 
applicant has provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that 
policies were violated, or that the comments included in the 
contested report were inappropriate, or unjust. Accordingly, we 
did not find the evidence sufficient to substantiate that the 
contested report was an inaccurate assessment of her performance 
and therefore, 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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-01781 in Executive Session on 5 January 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 Chair