RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-03713
		INDEX CODE 111.01  111.05
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 13 Mar 01 through 12 Mar 02 be declared void and removed from his records. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR is unjust in that it does not target progression and is not reflective or consistent with his duty performance. It does not provide recommendations for attending professional military education (PME) and future job recommendations, which will have a significant impact on his promotion opportunity.  He did not receive formal or informal feedback that his job performance was not meeting his supervisor’s expectations or would not warrant future PME and job recommendations.  He provides statements attesting, in part, to the rater’s chaotic management style.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was the chief of web technology and resources with the Air Force Medical Support Agency at Brooks AFB, TX, in the grade of captain. He then was assigned to the 10th Medical Operations Squadron at the USAF Academy (USAFA) as the group practice manager.

The applicant graduated from Squadron Officer School, in residence, in 2001. 

He was selected for promotion by the Calendar Year 2002B (CY02B) major board, which convened on 2 Oct 02.  

The applicant’s recent OPRs reflect the following:

	PERIOD ENDING		EVALUATION

	  12 Mar 99		Meets Standards (PME)
	  12 Mar 00		Training Report 
	* 12 Mar 01		Meets Standards (Assignment & PME)
	  24 Aug 01		Training Report (Squadron Officer School)
	**12 Mar 02		Meets Standards (No Assignment or PME)
	# 13 Sep 02		Meets Standards (Assignment & PME)

* The rater and the additional rater for the 12 Mar 01 OPR were 
  the same as in the contested report. 
**Contested OPR.
# Top OPR for CY02B board.

The applicant has not filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the applicant failed to provide any comments from anyone within his rating chain.  The applicant was also rated by the same rating chain in the previous year’s evaluation, in which they made PME and assignment recommendations.  It is clear that in the applicant’s previous report this rating chain felt that he was ready for continued PME and assignments; however, their opinion changed based on his performance during the rating period 13 Mar 01 through 12 Mar 02.  The applicant failed to provide a letter from his unit commander identifying whether feedback was or was not accomplished. Further, the governing directive indicates that lack of feedback will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report. The applicant should provide evidence that he did not receive feedback and that its lack directly resulted in his inability to meet or exceed standards.  The letters he provided are from individuals outside the rating chain. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends he provided a statement from someone within his rating chain who he worked with on a daily basis and documentation from individuals who were rated by the same supervisor. Although selected for major on a recent selection board, future boards will become more competitive and this OPR will have a significant impact on his potential selection.

The applicant’s complete rebuttal is at 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 the applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board is not persuaded that the contested OPR should be voided. We noted the supporting statements provided by the applicant; however, the Board majority is not persuaded that the omission of PME and assignment recommendations on the 12 Mar 02 OPR renders the report invalid. While the rater’s management style may have been perceived as chaotic by some individuals, the applicant has not established that either the rater or the additional rater were personally prejudiced against him. In this respect, the Board majority notes these evaluators included PME and assignment recommendations in the previous performance report. Although we cannot determine with any certainty, the possibility exists that their assessment of his potential may have changed during the contested rating period. Further, contrary to the applicant’s contentions, the contested report indicates he did receive performance feedback on 22 Oct 01. The applicant has not shown to the Board majority’s satisfaction that the report, as written, is in error or unjust. The majority of the Board therefore agrees with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopts the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 17 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr.XXXXX voted to grant, but he does not wish to submit a Minority Report. The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03713 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 6 Jan 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 03.