RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00936
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col)
rendered for the period 15 Mar 12 through 15 Feb 13, be removed
from her official record.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OPR was rendered with prejudice and malicious intentions and
not consistent with Air Force policies.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was serving in the grade of Major (O-4) during the
matter under review.
The applicant supplied a memorandum from the former 51 FW/CC,
dated 20 Feb 14, who was the applicants Senior Rater and also
the Reviewer for the OPR for the period of 15 Mar 12 through
15 Feb 13. In this memo, he states that shortly after the OPR
close out period an Inspector General (IG) investigation was
conducted and brought the contents of the OPR into question. He
would not have concurred with the OPR as written had he known
about the information revealed by the IG.
On 27 Nov 14, the applicant retired from the Regular Air Force
in the grade of Major (O-4).
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of
an error or an injustice. The Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records (AFBCMR) is the highest level of
administrative appeal within the Department of the Air Force and
will not consider a case until all avenues administrative
relief have been exhausted. The applicant will need to
submit an AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of
Evaluation Reports, with all required supporting documentation,
through the vMPF/Evaluation Appeals found under the Most Popular
Applications. In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2401, paragraph
1.1.3, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) works under the
assumption that evaluation reports are accurate and objective.
Therefore, the applicant must provide strong evidence to overcome
the reports presumed validity. In addition, paragraphs A1.2 and
A2.3 state when documenting the appeal, the applicant must
provide convincing documentation for the appeal; the applicant
must offer clear evidence that the original evaluation was unjust
or wrong; and quality, not quantity of documentation is the
issue. The applicant must substantiate any injustice(s) on the
contested report and provide sufficient supporting documentation
to validate/confirm any other claims. The applicant must prove
the report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators
based on knowledge available at the time. Furthermore, the
applicant must supply specific information about the unfair
evaluation for the board to make a reasoned judgment on the
appeal and show strong evidence to the board when requesting to
remove a report from the permanent record.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 28 Apr 15, for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a
thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we
believe the applicant has been the victim of an injustice. We
note the comments of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility, indicating the applicant has failed to exhaust
all avenues of administrative relief; however, we note the
applicant cannot file an appeal through the Evaluation Report
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2406,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, due to the
fact she is in retired status and is no longer authorized to
file an ERAB appeal. Nevertheless, we believe the applicant has
raised sufficient doubt regarding the equity and accuracy of the
contested officer performance report (OPR). In this respect, we
note that in support of her contention, the applicant provides
credible support in the form of a memorandum from her then-
current commander indicating the results of an investigation
disclosed discrepancies in the creation of her OPR as well as a
memorandum from her former commander stating he would not have
concurred with the OPR as written had he known about the
information revealed by the investigation. Based on the above,
we recommend the applicants record be corrected as indicated
below.
4. The applicants 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 RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AF
Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col), for the
period of 15 Mar 12 through 15 Feb 13, be declared void and
removed from her record.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00936 in Executive Session on 11 June 15, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00936 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDE, dated 2 Feb 15.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03790
DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrant correction or removal from an individuals record. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03478
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His records unjustly reflect time in military confinement since he was found not guilty of the misconduct which led to his confinement. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM did not provide a recommendation. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05186
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05186 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 16 September 2012 through 26 June 2013, be filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her final OPR from the Joint Staff, corrected DMSM, or the correct version of her PRF were not timely submitted to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04468
Finally, the applicant did not provide any additional supporting documentation to consider, i.e., commanders invalidation, AF Form 422, etc. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to void and remove the FAs dated 22 Feb 11, 1 Mar 11, and 22 Jun 11. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM and AFPC/DPSIDE evaluations is at Exhibit B and Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03473
He disagrees with the advisories that state he failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove his 2011 OPR was erroneous or unjust based on the content. Therefore, we recommend approval of the applicants request that his OPR be corrected to reflect the correct stratification statement and his record be considered for promotion to the grade of major by an SSB. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01553
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAMN notes no BCMR action is warranted for the OSB reflecting board certified “no” for the 1 Dec 09 promotion board because the applicant did not submit the AF Form 2096 prior to the convening of the board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05859
The reasons for the referral OPR were wrongful sexual contact with one female employee and sexual harassment of multiple female employees for which he received a LOR, UIF and CR action. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR, UIF and CR as served to the applicant, DPSID concludes that its mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01616
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01616 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The duty title on his AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), _closing on 9 Dec 13, be corrected to read APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was appointed as the on . On 7 Jan 14, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the contested OPR, which reflects the following duty title: . The remaining relevant facts...
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...