ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03883
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
IN THE MATTER OF:
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period
6 Dec 96 through 1 Jul 97 be expunged from his record.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the board on
18 Apr 06. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings
at Exhibit E.
Through his Member of Congress, the applicant requested that
additional information be considered in his case to have the
contested report removed. However, on 8 Jun 11, the Board
denied reconsideration of his request on the basis that the
applicant has pending litigation action in Federal court.
On 30 May 11, the applicant requests reconsideration of his
appeal and provides additional evidence.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement; copies of letter from his Member of Congress,
including a redacted document/testimony from his former rater.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action. We reviewed
the additional evidence in judging the merits of the case;
however, while we note the applicant has presented new evidence
to corroborate his claim, we did not find that it overcomes the
rationale expressed in the previous decision. In this respect,
we note that the basis of the applicant’s appeal suggests that
feedback was not accomplished or was not accomplished on the
date listed on the contested report. However, the governing
instructions notes that 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,
in our view, it appears that the comments in the additional
documents indicate not that feedback was not accomplished, but
that the date of the feedback may have been in error.
Therefore, we are not convinced that the new documentation
establishes the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of
his performance. In view of the above, we again find no basis
upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the
applicant’s request.
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 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-2005-03883 in Executive Session on 28 February 2012
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
with exhibits.
with attachments.
Panel Chair
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 10 May 06,
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Nov 11,
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03883 INDEX CODE: XXXXXXX COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUNE 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 6 Dec 96 through 1 Jul 97 be expunged from his records. The applicant contends that the officer performance...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01686
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01686 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 111.05, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 Dec 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Reports (OPR) for the periods 1 Mar 02 through 28 Feb 03 and 1 Mar 03 through 2 Jul 03 be modified by adding command push and professional military...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03204
Applicant states the evaluation of performance markings do not match up with the rater/additional rater's comments and promotion recommendation. 3.8.5.2 states do not suspense or require raters to submit signed/completed reports any earlier than five duty days after the close-out date. The applicant contends that he did not receive feedback and that neither the rater, nor the additional rater was his rater’s rater.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2005-02368-2
On 9 Mar 06, the Board considered and denied his request after finding that he had not provided the evidence necessary to substantiate the value of a senior rater endorsement (Exhibit F). However, his statement appears to be based primarily on his personal opinion that the applicant should have received a senior rater endorsement. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 10 July...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03091
Section III, Evaluation of Performance, contains ratings marked one block to the left by his rater, the squadron commander, and the additional rater, the group commander, for Duty performance and Managerial Skills. If the applicant had provided some supporting documentation that the feedback date was in error, the ERAB would have corrected the report to reflect the accurate date and/or applicable statement versus voiding the report. The applicant provided no evidence to support his claim.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02531
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 4 September 2002. The applicant has failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain on the contested performance report. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01765
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. They note that the letter stated that “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. The responsibility of the rater is to accurately assess the ratee’s performance and document it on the performance report.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00237
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received an unfair and unjust rating without any documentation and there was no feedback during or before 4 Feb 07 through 3 Feb 08. The Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) denied his appeal of the contested report. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03031
He believes his additional rater, one who’s well-versed in writing USAF OPRs, should/would have known excluding the PME recommendation was a clear negative signal to any promotion board, as it is with Navy boards. The performance feedback date is considered an administrative error/correction. The applicant contends he was not provided official feedback and that he believes the lack of a PME recommendation was retribution for his recommendation to the BRAC process.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00395
The rater provided an email indicating the applicant’s performance was exceptional, that he did discuss issues and concerns with her during spring feedback, the OPR was not intended to be negative, he did not feel it appropriate to provide the same stratification on the second year, and he based his judgment on the performance of all the squadron commanders he supervised. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes that since...