RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01607
		INDEX CODE: 131.00
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JAN 09

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 Jun 99 through 1 Jun 00, be replaced with a corrected OPR.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The report fails to include comment referring to the fact that she was selected as Company Grade Officer of the Quarter three times in one rating period.  When she attempted to have the comments included in her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) her wing commander refused to include them because she had no proof she earned the awards.  She has since spoken with former supervisors and had the OPR reaccomplished with letters stating the reasons for the oversight and omission.  

In support of her request, applicant provided copies of the contested and corrected reports and a statement from her supervisory chain.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.  She was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2005B (CY05B) Major Central Selection Board, but was considered and selected above-the-zone by the CY06B board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states an OPR is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it was rendered.  Once accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction of removal from a record.  She has not substantiated that the OPR was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  She submitted a memo for record that the information was not known at the time the report was being drafted, however the 1999 award was known by that time and the 2000 award was known prior to the closeout of the OPR.  A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a nonselection or may impact future opportunities.  The simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.  Inclusion of statements such as those requested by the applicant are not mandatory for inclusion and their omission does not make the report inaccurate.  The applicant must prove the report is inaccurate based on its content.  In addition, the statement "Three CGOQ's in 1 year" is misleading.  She only won two awards, one at squadron level, the second at squadron then group level.  The award at group level means she won two levels of the same award, not two separate awards.  

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jul 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion expressed by Air Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends the contested report is erroneous because it fails to include comments referring to her selection as Company Grade Officer of the Quarter three times in one rating period.  Of note, is the Air Force's contention that she actually was selected twice, winning two levels of the same award.  In support of her request, applicant provides a memo in which her rater states the awards were inadvertently left off the OPR.  Notwithstanding the support received from her rating chain, we are not persuaded the contested OPR as written is erroneous or unjust.  Numerous tasks and accomplishments are performed by a ratee during a 365-day reporting period.  However, OPRs contain limited space and not every accomplishment can be mentioned in any particular OPR.  Raters are tasked to prepare reports to the best of their ability at the time the report is rendered. In our opinion it appears that the rater wrote the report to the best of his ability at the time.  We find it unreasonable to believe the applicant's initial selection for the award was not available to her rater at the time the report was rendered and it appears that the information he contends was not available at the time the report was written, was in fact available prior to the report becoming a matter of record, yet no effort was made at the time when it would have been appropriate, to include the information in the report.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-01607 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 07, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 May 07, w/atchs
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 27 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.