RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01890
		INDEX CODE:  111.02
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The last bullet in section VI of her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 24 January 2004 through 9 January 2005 be voided from her records.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Pregnancy was the reason for duties not involving flying (DNIF) and is an unjust statement.  Her rater did not address this statement with her prior to writing the OPR.

In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested report and an AF Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report. 

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air Force on 29 May 2002 and was progressively promoted to the grade of captain having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 29 May 2006.  

The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile:

	    PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION 

 6 Mar 08                        MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
 6 Mar 07                        MS
 6 Mar 06                        MS
 9 Jan 05                        MS (Contested Report)

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial.  DPSIDEP states the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) reviewed her request and recommended denial.  It appears she is under the assumption that because she was pregnant, the mentioning of being DNIF is unjust.  Unfortunately not; the fact is, she was DNIF; the reason why does not matter, a male counterpart has no exceptions; why would there be for pregnancy.  Now had the report mentioned that she was DNIF due to pregnancy, she would have a viable reason to appeal, because specific medical information should not be discussed in an evaluation.  Unfortunately for her, the report does not mention she was pregnant.  She also contends that her rater did not discuss the statement with her before the report became a matter of record.  Unfortunately, the rater was not required to discuss the content of the report with her, and by not doing so did not violate Air Force policy.  In fact the rater is prohibited in providing a copy to the ratee until the report becomes a matter of record.  Furthermore, the content of the report is at the discretion of the rater and not the ratee.  The report is acceptable as written.  The report contains no errors, did not violate policy and is not unjust.  In fact it would be an injustice to her male counterparts to have the statement removed since there are no exceptions as to when you can and cannot mention DNIF in an evaluation. 

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_______________________________________________________________

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 11 July 2008 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).

_______________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  We took careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 BC-2008-01890 in Executive Session on 28 August 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
			XXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 23 June 2008.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 July 2008.

		XXXXXXXXXX
		Panel Chair