RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01878
							INDEX CODE:  111.01  
							COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING DESIRED :NO	

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period ending 30 October 1999 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The evaluators overly emphasized an isolated incident in violation of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  This is blatantly obvious when reviewing the attached supporting documentation submitted as evidence. 

In support of his request, applicant submits a copy of AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports; the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) decision; a professional endorsement by his commander subsequent to the contested events (the additional rater of his OPR closing 20 June 2000); copies of his OPRs covering the period 15 February 1997 through 19 March 2001; a letter of appreciation and AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File Action.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date as 29 May 1986.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with a date of rank and an effective date of 28 May 1990.  MilPDS reflects he has one non-select for promotion to major. 

The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

	PERIOD ENDING			OVERALL EVALUATION

	  19 Mar 01			MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
	  20 Jun 00				   MS
	* 30 Oct 99			DOES NOT MEET STANDARDS
	  06 Jan 98				   MS
	  08 Dec 98				   MS

* - Contested Report.  A similar appeal by the applicant was
    considered and denied by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that it is Air Force policy that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  The rating chain is permitted, and actually encouraged, to discuss evaluations on Air Force personnel while they are working copies.  Clear evidence must exist proving that the superior violated the evaluator’s rating rights.  The member submits no supporting documentation to support any of his contentions.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 9 July 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response.  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 error or injustice.  After careful consideration of the evidence provided, it is our opinion that the rater’s reference to the “incident” in which the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand and the establishment of an Unfavorable Information File in the contested report was not in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing directive.  The underlying misconduct did occur during the reporting period covered by the contested OPR.  We choose not to disturb the discretionary judgments of the evaluators, who are closer to events, absent a strong showing of abuse of that authority.  There has been no such showing here.  We noted the statement by the applicant’s commander who was the additional rater on his June 2000 report.  While laudatory of the applicant’s performance, this officer was not charged with evaluating the applicant’s performance during the referent period and, while he believes the reaction of the rating chain on the previous report to the events under review was excessively harsh, his opinion, alone, is not sufficient to usurp the discretionary assessments of the evaluators of the contested report.  In the absence of persuasive evidence showing the evaluators of the contested report abused their discretion or showing that the information in the report was erroneous, we are unable to conclude that the report was unjust or technically flawed.  Accordingly, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01878 in Executive Session on 30 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 8 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 02.

                                   Panel Chair