ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00980 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His aviation rating be reinstated. 

 

2. His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period 17 Feb 06 to 16 Feb 07 be declared void and removed 
from his record based on the reinstatement of his aviation 
rating. 

 

3. He be promoted to the grade of major based on the above 
requested corrective action. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 3 Aug 10, by majority vote, the Board considered and denied a 
similar request. For an accounting of the facts surrounding his 
previous request and the rationale of the Board’s earlier 
decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I (with 
Exhibits A thru H). 

 

On 28 Sep 10, the applicant submitted a request for 
reconsideration. In his request for reconsideration, he 
provides correspondence from various writers who have contacted 
him concerning his case. The reporters exposed critical 
elements he was unable to. He contends Mr. H, staff writer for 
the Air Force Times successfully contacted Mr. G, the enlisted 
man from one of his wartime crews who inspired the letter he 
wrote to the local paper which resulted in immediate leadership 
retaliation. 

 

Furthermore, the applicant states his reputation was ruined and, 
despite passing four additional evaluations, two with 
“excellent” grades, the 349 AMW leadership had no intention of 
letting him continue to serve his country, and as testimony 
showed, made it known throughout his chain of command. The 
documents from his Congressional Office shows that no effort was 
put into investigating the evidence of religious discrimination, 
procedural errors, illegal acts of his commander or FEB findings 
that are demonstrably inconsistent with the evidence provided. 
The destruction of a career due to religious intolerance is 
against American protocol. Men and women who have gone to war 


for our country expressed a real fear of opposing the corrupt 
349 AMW leadership, leadership which routinely dealt with this 
kind of honesty with retaliation, despite their observations of 
unfair treatment intended to “railroad” him, to virtually 
destroy his life, without a valid cause. 

 

In support of his request the applicant provides a personal 
statement, and email correspondence. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit J. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was 
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After 
thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in 
support of his appeal, and the evidence of record, we do not 
believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in 
our previous decision to warrant reinstating his aviation 
rating, removing the OPR rendered for the period 17 Feb 06 to 
16 Feb 07 and promoting him to the grade of major. While the 
applicant alleges the negative actions taken against him were 
the result of religious discrimination, we note that he has not 
provided any evidence that he filed a Military Equal Opportunity 
(MEO) or Inspector General (IG) complaint. Therefore, his 
application is unsupported by the evidence and we conclude the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of showing he 
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above 
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis 
upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the 
applicant’s request. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2009-00980 in Executive Session on 11 Aug 11, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit I. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 May 09, 

 w/exhibits A through H. 

 Exhibit J. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 28 Sept 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair