RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02257
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for
the period 11 Sep 12 through 10 Sep 13, be removed from his
records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An anonymous, unsubstantiated allegation was made against him.
As a result, the actions taken against him were based solely on
the personal opinion of his supervisor that had no basis in
fact.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of
Colonel (Col) during the period of time in question.
On 5 Dec 13, the applicant received an OPR rendered for the
period of 11 Sep 12 through 10 Sep 13, on which was marked Does
Not Meet Standards in performance factor areas #3 (Professional
Qualities) and #7 (Physical Fitness) which made his OPR a
referral. His Rater stated in section IV (Rater Overall
Assessment) that member wrongfully verified his fitness test
sit-up score knowing it was incorrect resulting in his removal
from command. The additional Rater stated in section V
(Additional Rater Overall Assessment) that the member has been
reassigned to AFRC.
The applicants OPR profile is listed below:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
8 Jan 07 Meets Standards (MS)
8 Jan 08 MS
8 Jan 09 MS
8 Jan 10 MS
8 Jan 11 MS
10 Sep 11 MS
10 Sep 12 MS
*10 Sep 13 Does Not MS
*Referral Report
On 19 Dec 13, the applicant submitted a rebuttal statement.
On 1 Jun 14, the applicant was honorably retired.
In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation
Systems, Retired or separated personnel are not eligible to
apply for correction through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB); therefore, they must apply to the AFBCMR.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of
an error or an injustice. While the applicant claims that there
was no basis in fact for the contested action, he does not
provide evidence to support his claim. Additionally, the does
not meet standards rating in fitness was not the sole basis for
the referral of the contested OPR as the applicant was rated as
does not meet standards in Professional Qualities.
Accordingly, the Air Force Fitness Management (AFFMS) printout
showing a passing score on a fitness assessment is not
sufficient to conclude there is an injustice. Air Force policy
is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it
becomes a matter of record. It is considered to represent the
rating chains best judgment at the time it is rendered. To
approve the request would be contrary to AFI 36-2406.
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS 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 7 Jan 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicants 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
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2014-02257 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 2015, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-02257 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 19 Nov 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01675
Applicants EPR closeout profile for the last four years is as follows: CLOSEOUT RATING 13 Sep 10 2 13 Sep 11 5 13 Sep 12 5 * 17 May 13 4 Directed by Commander 1 Nov 13 5 Directed by same Commander 30 Nov 14 5 * Contested EPR The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00258
In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel record, which include performance reports, Air Force Forms (AF) IMT 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, as well as letters of support from his current rating chain. The complete ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In support of his request the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01781
There was only one letter of counseling and no other supporting documentation of the alleged issues which resulted in the referral report. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We considered the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of her case;...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00789 INDEX CODE: 114.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 4 Sep 96 through 3 Sep 97, be declared void and removed from his records. The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05436
Before issuing the LOR, the OG/CC requested a copy of the LOR purportedly given to the applicant while performing duties at Tyndall AFB since there was no record of the LOR in the applicants personnel file. The OG/CC never received a copy of said LOR and therefore documented the applicants misconduct with the LOR, dated 18 Sep 10. A complete copy of the AFRC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00799
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the LOR. Rather, as an administrative action, the standard of proof for an LOR (and referral OPR) is a preponderance of the evidence; i.e., that it is more likely than not that the fact occurred as...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04551
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04551 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period of 21 Jun 12 through 20 Jun 13, be voided or removed from his military personnel records. In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, chapter 10, paragraph 10.1.1: The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00759
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: According to AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, and AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems; his rater did not have 120 days of supervision to write an annual report. The applicants EPR profile is listed below: Period Ending Overall Evaluation 15 Apr 12 5 *15 Apr 13 4 15 Apr 14 4 30 Nov 14 5 *Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00088
On 1 April 2004, the AFBCMR considered and, by a majority vote, recommended approval of applicant's request for removal of the OPR, closing 10 February 2002, LOCs, LOA, UIF, and all references thereto, from his records and SSB consideration, with his corrected record. As to the Board’s previous decision, DPB indicates that HQ ARPC complied (all available references to the LOC, LOA, UIF and the OPR were removed from the applicant’s record), and awarded SSB in lieu of the FY03 and FY04 Line...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02192
A raters failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a PFW, will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report or (for officers) PRF. Furthermore, IAW AFI 36-2401, paragraph Al.5.8, it states that Only members in the rating chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a direct correlation between information provided during feedback sessions and the...