RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00958
				INDEX CODE:  131.00

	APPLICANT 	COUNSEL:  XXXX XXXX

	SSN		HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 6 May 1999 through 2 January 2000 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR in question is not an accurate assessment of his job performance.  He was never given any notice that his performance may have been deficient.  Nor, was he given an explanation of how he failed to meet standards.  He accomplished the mission safely and on time.  He was not afforded the time to bring the unit up to excellence.

In support of his appeal the applicant's counsel submitted a thirteen-page brief, with attachments (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting the OPR be removed from his records because the OPR did not reflect an accurate assessment of his work performance.  The ERAB was not convinced by the applicant's documentation and denied the appeal.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a colonel is listed below.

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  6 May 98		Meets Standards
			  5 May 99		Meets Standards
			 *2 Jan 00		3 Meets Standards, 3 Does Not
					Meet Standards (Leadership
					Skills), Organization Skills,
					Judgement and Decisions, the 
					latter two were upgraded by
					the Additional Rater
			  2 Jan 01		Meets Standards
			  4 Jun 01		Meets Standards

*Contested Referral Report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states feedback is required in accordance with Air Force policy, however, there may be no direct correlation between the information provided during feedback and the assessment on the evaluation report.  A service member may receive a positive feedback session prior to the preparation of his report, however, if a problem occurs before the report is written, the evaluator must address the issue in the report, even if the issue disagrees with the previous feedback.  

AFI 36-2402 does not require a rater to give a detailed explanation on the report as to how the ratee did not meet standards.  The purpose of a referral report is to provide the ratee with the opportunity to comment on items identified as not meeting the minimum standards, as in the applicant's case.  

The applicant further contends that he was not given sufficient time to bring the unit up to excellence.  His concerns were addressed in his rebuttal to the additional rater.  The additional rater after considering the comments upgraded the impacted areas on the report in accordance with the AFI.

Based on the evidence provided, DPPPE recommends denying the applicant's request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the counsel on 26 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 to warrant removing the  applicant's  OPR  rendered  for  the period ending 2 January 2000.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, 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(s) 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 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 Docket Number 02-00958 in Executive Session on July 2, 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Officer Selection Brief.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 26 Apr 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.