RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00229
				INDEX CODE:  131.00

	APPLICANT 	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance  Report (OPR) rendered  for  the period 15 Apr 94 through 14 Apr 95 be declared void; and he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR in question was written by someone outside of his usual supervisory chain; the assessment of his performance was inaccurate and unflattering and was inconsistent with other JAG officers' OPRs.  He also states that the report was not processed properly because it was processed on the wrong form; and the OPR was written without any input from him.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered, but not selected, for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the calendar year (CY) CY99A, CY99B, CY00A and CY01B central selection boards.

Applicant’s last ten OPRs reflect "Meets Standards."

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant alleges that the OPR was written as a Change of Rater (CRO) but was actually labeled on the report as annual.  The reporting period was 15 Apr 94 thru 14 Apr 95, there is no evidence to indicate a CRO report was required.

When the applicant's OPR was written, the requirement to conduct performance feedback was for lieutenants and captains.  It was not required for majors through colonels until Oct 95.

In most instances a deputy staff judge advocate (SJA) would be supervised by an SJA when situations dictate, however, the wing commander may write the report as the rater.  The applicant has not provided any statements of support from his rating chain or other individuals in his rating chain when the report was signed.  Without the support of his rating chain DPPPE can only conclude the report was written as accurate.  Furthermore, a report is not erroneous or unfair because the ratee believes the report contributed to a nonselection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities.  DPPPE recommends denying the requested relief.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO concurs with the findings of DPPPE and states that SSB consideration is not warranted and they have nothing further to add.  Based on the evidence provided, they recommend the application be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 5 Apr 02, for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the Board majority is unpersuaded that relief should be granted.  Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, the Board majority does not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the offices of the Air Force.  The applicant did not provide any evidence as to why the report is not an accurate reflection of his performance.  Nor has he provided any documentation from his rating chain in support of his request.  Without the support from his rating chain; therefore, we must assume that the report in question is accurate as written.  In view of the foregoing, the Board majority finds no compelling basis upon which to recommend the requested relief.

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.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00229 in Executive Session on May 22, 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

By majority vote, the Board recommended denying the application. Ms. Maust voted to grant correcting the records but she does not desire to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 20 Jan 02, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Officer Selection Brief.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Mar 02.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Mar 02
	Exhibit E.	Letter,SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.

	

AFBCMR 02-00229

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of APPLICANT, SSN

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.