RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03168
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
	XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:   

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on her for the period 14 Jun 01 through 13 Jun 02 be voided and removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In an 11-page brief of counsel, applicant’s counsel makes the following contentions:

	  a.  The applicant’s performance was observed and considered to be superior by a general officer she worked directly under for 18-months in the same position that she received the contested OPR.

	  b.  Numerous factors triggered the contested OPR she received, i.e., she had the same responsibility as those senior to her in grade, she had numerous additional duties, while her contemporaries had none, she was a woman performing in a traditionalist “man’s world,” her Navy superior was uncomfortable with her enthusiasm and flair.

	  c.  She was placed in a “no win” situation due to eight specific challenges:

	      1.  She was placed under the supervision of her contemporaries from other services when she should have worked directly under the XXXXX Deputy Director.

	      2.  She was assigned responsibilities equivalent to her contemporaries from the other services without the rank to back it up.

	      3.  Navy parochialism poisoned the atmosphere against the applicant.

	      4.  She was cautioned against talking to her Air Force chain of command while all other service advisors talked to theirs.

	      5.  She was not provided any guidance from her supervisor when she sought it on assigned tasks.

	      6.  She was cautioned not to work overtime because it would leave the wrong impression.

	      7.  Her supervisor was jealous of her ability to get results.

	      8.  She was severely chastised for drafting her OPR.

Counsel provides in-depth discussion of the applicant’s OPR and gives a list of specific accomplishments omitted or treated cavalierly in the contested OPR.

In further support of the applicant’s appeal, counsel provides a chronology of events during the applicant’s assignment and performance of duties in the position leading to the contested report and other key documents.

The applicant also provided a copy of her most recent OPR closing out 13 Jun 03 and a copy of her most recent Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a Reserve lieutenant colonel serving on active duty.  She has three nonselections to the grade of colonel.  A resume of her five past OPRs follows:

	Closeout Date			Overall Rating

	  13 Jun 99			Meets Standards
	  13 Jun 00			Meets Standards
	  13 Jun 01			Meets Standards
	  13 Jun 02			Does Not Meet Standards
	 *13 Jun 03			Meets Standards

* Contested Report.  Marked “Does Not Meet Standards” in three performance factors in Section V: Leadership, Professional Qualities, and Judgment and Decisions.  Report was referred to applicant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, which denied her request.  The assumption is that evaluation reports are accurate and objective.  The applicant did not provide substantiated proof that the evaluator was biased or that the report was inaccurate.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides specific examples that she indicates cause the contested OPR to be in violation of Air Force Instruction 36-2406.  She points out that information was included in the OPR, which occurred after the reporting period, and that the necessary extension of the closeout date required to include this information was never done.  The applicant also points out information which she believes should not have been included because it was not mentioned in the performance feedback she received.  The applicant also points out what she believes are contradictions in documents prepared by her rater and others in her chain of command.  She opines that these violations make the contested OPR inappropriate and justifies removing it from her record.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a second response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant further indicates that the Air Force evaluation failed to give more than a generic response to her contentions on propriety and equity.  She also points out that paragraph 3 of the evaluation contains an illogical comment that since she had successfully skirted the ire of her rating official in the past, he could not be guilty of harassing and unacceptable behavior during the timeframe of the contested OPR.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the complete evidence of record, we find insufficient relevant evidence to support the applicant’s contentions as laid out by her counsel.  The letters of reference submitted by the applicant, while laudatory, are from outside her rating chain and do not provide conclusive evidence that the contested OPR constitutes an error or injustice.  In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant opines that line six, Section IV, “Recalled from TDY assignment…” is inappropriate because this action occurred outside of the reporting period.  It is not clear to the Board that this is the case.  The applicant states that the first indication she had of the termination of her TDY was   30 Jul 02.  However, we note that the OPR was referred to her on    9 Jul 02.  The applicant challenges the appropriateness of several other statements on the ground that the issues were never mentioned in her feedback session of 5 Mar 02.  AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2-10, clearly states that failure to conduct or document a feedback session “will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report.”  Finally, while the applicant appears to place much of the blame for the contested OPR on inter-service rivalry, we note that an Air Force advisor serving in the grade of major general signed off on the report.  While we can agree that the contested OPR appears out of character with other documented performance in the applicant’s record, we do not find a sufficient basis to recommend granting the relief requested.

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 issues 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 BC-2003-03168 in Executive Session on 19 February 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPB, dated 3 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 8 Jan 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jan 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 15 Jan 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Jan 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Feb 04.