RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01781 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period 22 March 2009 – 31 January 2010 be removed. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The rater’s overall assessment states that she was counseled multiple times during the rating period for issues related to integrity and professional behavior. However, the alleged issues for which the counseling was administered were unfounded and unsubstantiated. Further, she contends that none of the alleged issues which caused her OPR to be downgraded were actually done. This was merely an illegal tactic to get rid of her from the unit. There was only one letter of counseling and no other supporting documentation of the alleged issues which resulted in the referral report. In her personal statement, the applicant notes the OPR was flagged at the personnel section because there was no justification for the rating and further explained the circumstances which led to the incidents causing her OPR to be referred. She was trying to do her job, look out for her people, and received letters of commendation and awards during the period in question. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; several character reference letters; email correspondence with the Reserve Promotion section; Evaluation Report and Appeals Board (ERAB) package and decision; copies of the citation for the Air Force Achievement Award; signed reports closing on the same date, her NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with her 20 Jan 11 separation from the Air Nation Guard (ANG), and other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, while serving in the grade of major, received a referral report for the period of 22 Mar 09 through 31 Jan 10. The applicant separated from the ANG on 20 Jan 11, and was transferred to the Air Force Reserve, effective 21 Jan 11. The applicant filed an appeal to the ERAB; however; on 22 Feb 11, her appeal was denied. The applicant’s OPR profile of the last ten reports follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 21 Mar 02 Meet Standards (MS) 21 Mar 03 MS 21 Mar 04 MS 21 Mar 05 MS 21 Mar 06 MS 21 Mar 07 MS 21 Mar 08 MS 21 Mar 09 MS #31 Jan 10 Referral 20 Jan 11 MS # Contested Report The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant has provided no evidence to indicate the report of her military performance during the rating period was inaccurate. A basic assumption is that evaluation reports are accurate and objective when written. A report evaluates performance during a specific period and reflects performance, conduct, and potential at that time, in that position. Ratings are not erroneous because they are inconsistent with other ratings received: The applicant did receive non-referral OPRs from the same organization in the two years prior to the one closing 31 Jan 10. Strong evidence must be provided by the applicant to overcome a report's presumed validity. The applicant has not provided any information or documentation that her military performance was anything other than as portrayed in the OPR. She has provided information that she was awarded outstanding ratings in her civilian position; however, one does not translate into the other. Both jobs, while important, have different requirements based on the missions of the organizations in question. The complete ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response the applicant notes that compliance with AFI 36- 2406 is mandatory. She indicates that the contested OPR did not comply with specific requirements in the AFI. Her unit’s failure to comply with requirements resulted in total miscommunication and the down-rating of the contested report. Further the negative statements in the report lack detail which also does not comply with AFI 36-2406. The applicant also points out other areas she believes the contested report fails to comply with the governing directive and provides her explanation/defense of the allegations contained in the contested report. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 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 error or injustice. We note that the applicant initially indicated that the allegations referred to in the contested report were not accurate. After having the opportunity to review the Air Force Reserve evaluation and its opinion, the applicant now asserts that the contested report was in violation of the governing instruction due to the lack of required feedback, non-specific/vague comments about her behavior and whether or not the staff judge advocate (SJA) or the military personnel flight (MPF) was consulted. We considered the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of her case; however, other than her own assertions we found no evidence to substantiate her claim that the alleged incidents which led to the contested report were unfounded. In addition, we note that, based on the governing instructions, while feedback is important and required, the lack of feedback, in and of itself, does not invalidate a report. Further, while the applicant may disagree, we are not convinced that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that policies were violated, or that the comments included in the contested report were inappropriate, or unjust. Accordingly, we did not find the evidence sufficient to substantiate that the contested report was an inaccurate assessment of her performance and therefore, find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) 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-2011-01781 in Executive Session on 5 January 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch.