RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00130 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Two Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for periods of 1 Jul 13 through 30 Jun 14 and 1 Jul 14 through 31 Mar 15 be voided from her permanent record. Her Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) be voided and replaced with one that includes stratification. Her records receive reconsidered for reinstatement to Active Duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received unjust treatment while assigned to her unit which caused a domino effect of negative actions: two erroneous OPRs and a selection for non-retention in the Air Force. Both OPRs in question were prepared without her receiving any feedback and her RRF omitted significant stratification. All of this contributed to her not being selection for continuation. In support of her request, the applicant provided a background paper, a copy of the RRF reviewed by the Board, a recommended RRF for supplemental board consideration, copy of her career brief, copies of OPRs and decorations, and copies of E-mail communication trails. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 14 Jan 02. On 21 Jul 14, the applicant’s rater signed her OPR rendered for the period of 1 Jul 13 through 30 Jun 14. Both the additional rater and senior rater concurred with the rater’s assessment. On 24 Jul 14, the applicant acknowledged that “YES” all required feedback was accomplished during the reporting period and upon receipt of this report. On 10 Apr 15, the applicant’s rater signed her OPR rendered for the period of 1 Jul 14 through 31 Mar 15. Both the additional rater and senior rater concurred with the rater’s assessment. On 15 Apr 15, the applicant acknowledged that “NO” required feedback was accomplished during the reporting period and upon receipt of this report. On 30 Apr 15, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and was credited with 13 years, 3 months, and 19 days of active service. The applicant’s type of separation was listed as “Resignation” and the narrative reason for separation was listed as “Reduction in Force”. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends that she was not provided feedback for her 2014 and 2015 OPRs. While documented feedback sessions are required, they do not replace informal day-to-day feedback and in this case, the applicant does not appear to have sought any remedies from the additional rater of the reports. Additionally, a rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session, or document the session on a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), does not invalidate a performance report. Concerning the applicant’s request to have her RRF corrected to include omitted stratification, the applicant has failed to provide a re-accomplished RRF, along with signed memorandum of support/justification from the original evaluators at the time. Although the AFBCMR is not governed by AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, they would request the AFBCMR honor the guidance set for an evaluation appeal within the governing directive. They urge the AFBCMR to assert the same requirement as to not circumvent the evaluators which bear the responsibility of making a fair and equitable assessment at the time the report was written. They do not believe the applicant has provided sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain -- not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information or clarification from all the rating officials on the contested evaluation. Based on the lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the evaluations, they recommend the reports not be voided nor changed in the member’s permanent record. The applicant failed to provide compelling evidence to show the report was unjust or inaccurate as written A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR-SEP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In accordance with Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 14-38, a FY15 Reduction in Force (RIF) Board was convened to evaluate eligible officers for continued retention. The Board considered officers in the grade of Captain in year groups 2006 through 2008 and all Majors in year groups 2001 through 2003. A review of applicant’s personnel records reveals that she was selected to meet the FY15 RIF Board, was not selected for retention, and was given a separation date of 30 Apr 15. The applicant had the opportunity to submit a letter to the Board to address any circumstances and/or highlight any accomplishments in her record. Since AFPC/DPSID is not recommending removal of the OPRs or changing of the RRF, the original decision made by the Board based on their review of her record should remain firm. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Oct 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-00130 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00130 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Oct 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR-SEP, dated 21 Oct 15. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 15.