RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01985 (Case 2)

		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 111.05

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 1 Aug 00 and 8 Feb 01, be declared void and removed from her records.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested OPRs are not indicative of her accomplishments and job performance during the rating periods but are concentrated on isolated events.  They were a result of improper supervision and retribution for IG complaints she filed against individuals in her chain of command.

In support of her request, applicant submits a personal statement copies of the contested reports with her rebuttal statements, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 15 Jan 87.  She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 17 Oct 99.  The following is a resume of her OPR ratings subsequent to her promotion to that grade.

		Period Ending	Evaluation

		   3 Dec 99	Meets Standards
		*  1 Aug 00	Does Not Meet Standards
		*  8 Feb 01	Does Not Meet Standards
		   8 Feb 02	Meets Standards

*  Contested Referral OPRs

On 1 May 01, the applicant was notified that the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) determined there was insufficient evidence to conduct a reprisal investigation under Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1034.  A copy of the IG investigation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that evaluators are obliged to consider isolated incidents, their significance and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential.  The applicant contends the statements on her 1 Aug 00 OPR are not altogether true.  She states she provided proof to her evaluators that the information listed was not true, that she had notified her secretary of her whereabouts; however, the only evidence she provided showed the secretary had made calls to the base operator, not to the motels the applicant was staying at.  Further, there is no evidence that the evaluators were made aware of the locations from the applicant or her secretary.  The applicant contends on the 8 Feb 01 OPR, which states “authored inadequate work product; 2000 Tuberculosis Risk Assessment contained fundamental flaws” is unjust.  She states she should not have been penalized for the Apr 00 document because it was outside the reporting period.  However, the evaluators did not discover the errors until Feb 01 and AFI 36-2406 authorizes the inclusion of prior events if they add significantly to the evaluation report, were not known to and considered by the previous evaluators, and were not previously reflected in an evaluation report.  Therefore, the mention of the 2000 document was in accordance with the AFI and not considered unjust or unfair.  Additionally, the applicant’s contention that the remaining referral comments are false, exaggerated and unfair are only her opinions and without substantiating evidence.  DPPPE indicated that the applicant stated she filed two IG complaints, but only provided a response to one.  The additional support provided is from individuals who were not aware of the applicant’s particular situation.  DPPPE states that the applicant indicated the situation was investigated by an outside agency; however, she did not provide the results of the investigation.  Further, the applicant states during this period she was given disciplinary actions, including being placed on the control roster, but these actions were not mentioned on the reports.  This is not consistent with the accusations of biased evaluators who were out to get her.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Aug 02 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

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 a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, to include the statements of support, we are unpersuaded that the contested OPRs should be removed from her record.  The applicant’s allegations of reprisal and other harassing actions were found to be unsubstantiated and the local IG dismissed her case.  Following approval by the Secretary of the Air Force Inquiries Division (SAF/IGQ) and the Department of Defense Special Inquiries, the applicant’s case was closed.  The applicant has not presented convincing evidence substantiating her allegations that the reports were biased, retaliatory or inaccurate assessments of her performance during the pertinent rating periods.  With regard to the letters of support, while these individuals are entitled to their opinions, they were not in the applicant’s rating chain.  As such, we do not believe their personal opinion should be substituted for those responsible for assessing the applicant’s performance during the contested rating periods.  In our opinion, the applicant was rated properly based on the evaluators’ perception of her performance at that point in time.  Additionally, we found no evidence to indicate that the contested OPRs were prepared in a manner contrary to the pertinent provisions of the governing Air Force instruction.  We, therefore, agree with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing and absent sufficient 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(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 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 27 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01985.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  IG Investigation (withdrawn).
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, undated.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Aug 02.

                                   Panel Chair