RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00339
		INDEX CODE:  114.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 17 Mar 98 through 16 Dec 98 be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Undue emphasis on an isolated incident combined with geographic separation, tainted her commander's perception of her performance for the duration of the reporting period.  The OPR is not reflective of her performance; specifically, it omits any reference to her ability to lead as a commander.  The events surrounding the incident resulted in an unfair report that was based on feelings and not facts.  

In support of her request, applicant provided documents associated with her Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 4 May 85 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 12 May 85.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 97.  She currently has a projected date of separation of 31 Mar 05.

The following is a resume of her recent OPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION

	29 Jun 01		Meets Standards
	05 Aug 00		Meets Standards
	16 Dec 99		Meets Standards
	16 Dec 98 (Contested Report)		Meets Standards
	16 Mar 98		Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPPPE states that the ERAB denied her request because she did not provide statements from her rater, additional rater, and reviewer supporting her contentions.  Additionally, she did not provide any evidence that geographic separation resulted in an unfair evaluation.  Many individuals have to perform duties without the benefit of direct daily supervision; therefore, separation alone is not a good argument.  The DPPPE 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 22 Feb 01 for review and comment 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Applicant contends that undue emphasis on an isolated incident and geographic separation tainted her commander’s perception of her performance, which resulted in an unfairly written performance report.  Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find her uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by the Air Force.  We are not convinced by the evidence she provided in support of her appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance during the specified time period.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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 Docket Number 02-00339 in Executive Session on 14 May 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Feb 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 02.