RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00121
		INDEX CODE:  111.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 18 Dec 95 through 17 Dec 96, be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR makes reference to a civilian conviction that does not exist.  On 8 Jan 98, all charges were dismissed and he was released from all penalties resulting from said offense.  He has the full support of his rater and additional rater in this matter.  

In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his 17 Dec 96 OPR; Grand Forks County District Court orders; his criminal record check; statements from his rater and additional rater; and, his Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision. His complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the personnel data system reveals that applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 14 Jun 92 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty (EAD) on 8 Dec 92.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade with a date of rank of 14 Jun 96.

The following is a resume of his recent OPR profile.

	PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

	21 Apr 00		Training Report
	31 Jul 99		Training Report
	12 Jul 99		Meets Standards
	17 Dec 98		Meets Standards
	23 Apr 98		Training Report

	17 Dec 97		Meets Standards
 *17 Dec 96		Does Not Meet Standards

* - Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial.  DPPPEP states that applicant twice engaged in inappropriate conduct which was properly documented on his OPR.  His rating chain has been misled to believe that he was not convicted of the charges at all.  He was initially convicted (after his plea of guilty); however, only after completion of the terms of the probation was the conviction later dismissed.  Although the Grand Forks County District Court dismissed the charges against him, when the rater signed and referred the OPR on 2 Jan 96, the statement on the OPR was a true and accurate statement (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20 Apr 00 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  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 responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of the applicant's behavior during the specified time period.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 14 Jun 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 9 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 20 Apr 01.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair