RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01915
		INDEX CODE:  131.01
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 1 August 2002 to 15 January 2003 be removed from her records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her OPR for the above-mentioned reporting period does not accurately reflect her accomplishments.  Additionally, she did not receive documented feedback from her immediate supervisor as required by AFI 36-2406.

In support of the application, the applicant submits a personal statement, expanding and elaborating on her contentions, a copy of the contested report, an e-mail request to her supervisor for a copy of her feedback session MFR, her OPR for the period of 1 August 2001 through 31 July 2002, OPR inputs to her supervisor, and memorandum from HQ AFPC/DPPP announcing the Evaluation Report Appeal Board’s (ERAB’s) denial of her appeal.  The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates that the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 27 December 1983.  She performed duties as a Reserve officer until 27 September 1987, when she was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty in the grade of first lieutenant.  She was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 27 February 1991 and has been progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 2001.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Report/Officer Performance Report ratings 
commencing with the report closing 2 July 1997, rendered on the applicant in the grade of major.

 PERIOD ENDING	PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

 02 Jul 97	 Meets Standards (MS)
 25 May 98			MS
 21 Apr 99	 Training Report (TR)
 09 Aug 00			TR
 31 Jul 01 (Lt Col)			MS
 31 Jul 02			MS
*15 Jan 03			MS
 15 Jan 04			MS

Note:  * Contested OPR.  A similar appeal by the applicant was
         considered and denied by the ERAB on 12 March 2004.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial.  DPPPE opines that while the applicant may not agree with the verbiage her evaluators chose to document in her report, she was not charged with assessing her own performance; thus, making her “opinion” of significant accomplishments a moot point.  DPPPE notes the applicant’s contention of lack of performance feedback is not substantiated.  As indicated in the ERAB’s 12 March 04 memo, Table 2.1, does not mandate feedback for (applicant) during the rating period in question.  Rule 2 of that table indicates only initial and midterm feedback is required for Lieutenant Colonels.  As such, based on the August 02 closeout date of the previous report, the next required feedback was not due until approximately February 03.

DPPPE states an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgement at the time it is rendered.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant and, in DPPPE’s opinion, she has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available to them at the time.  The mere fact that the applicant does not agree with the words her evaluators chose to document her performance does not make their assessment inaccurate or unjust.  DPPPE concludes the applicant has not provided any documentation to indicate the assessment on the report is inaccurate or unjust, but simply provides unsubstantiated conjecture and her own assessment.  As for the applicant’s contention that she should be provided access to the MFR noted by the rater in the report, DPPPE defers to the ERAB’s recommendation that she take that up with local FOIA authorities.  DPPPE stated that since no feedback was required, the applicant’s contentions of not being allowed to review the MFR is not germane to this case.  DPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates her initial contentions and states that her supervision began on 1 August 2001.  She was not given the required initial feedback.  Her feedback session did not occur within the first 60 (sixty) days of supervision.

In further support of her request, the applicant provided an excerpted copy of AFI 36-2404, Table 2.1 (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 probable error or injustice.  The applicant’s complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the office of primary responsibility (OPR).  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence by the applicant that would lead us to believe the contested report is technically flawed, or, that the evaluators relied on erroneous or misleading information when preparing the report, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, we have no basis on which to favorably consider the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 19 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2004-01915

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 04 w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 19 Jul 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jul 04.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 2 Aug 04 w/atch.