AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-0 Qq$)lg  1999 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Officer  Effectiveness  Report  (OER) closing  29  July  1966  be 
investigated and removed from his records and that he be provided a 
list of  agencies that have had access to this effectiveness report 
or abstracts therefrom since it was filed. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
This  report  was  based  on  slanders  by  several  persons  who  were 
angered by  his  refusal to take part  in illegal acts.  It does not 
reflect  his  actual  performance  during  the  [rating]  period  and 
creates  an  impression  that  would  have  prejudiced  his  continued 
active  duty  in  the  Air  Force. 
It  has  a l s o   contributed  to  his 
civilian employment problems in the United States. 

In support of his request, applicant provided his expanded comments 
and  an  affidavit  outlining the  events  surrounding  the preparation 
of the contested report; a copy of the contested report; an undated 
extract  from  a  medical  record,  subject:  In-Flight  and  "Ground" 
Psychiatric  Evaluation;  and  copies  of  individual  flight  records 
covering the period January -  September 1966.  (Exhibit A) 

STATEMENT O F   FACTS: 
On  11  June  1963,  applicant  was  appointed  as  second  lieutenant, 
Reserve of the Air  Force.  He was  voluntarily  ordered to extended 
active  duty  on  9  January  1964.  He  served  on  continuous  active 
duty, was  integrated into the Regular  component on  19 March  1964, 
and progressively promoted to the grade of captain. 

A resume of applicant's  OERs follows: 

PERIOD CLOSING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

10 Nov 64 
2 9   Jul 65 

Training Report 
Very Fine; Performing well in present 
grade.  Consider for promotion with 
contemporaries. 

29 Jan 66 

* 

29 Jul 66 

21 Feb 68 

Very Fine; Performing well in present 
grade.  Consider for promotion with 
contemporaries. 
Very Fine; Performing well in present 
grade.  Consider for promotion with 
contemporaries. 
Exceptionally fine; Demonstrates 
capabilities for increased 
responsibility.  Consider for 
advancement ahead of contemporaries. 

22 Feb 68 -  21 Aug 68 -  Report removed by order of ARPC Officer 

Personnel Records Review Board on 15 Jan 69. 
*  Contested report. 
On 29 January 1968, applicant voluntarily  tendered his resignation 
from all appointments in the USAF.  On 22 March 1968, the Secretary 
of  the  Air  Force  (SAF) accepted  his  resignation;  however,  the 
effective  date  of  the  resignation  was  deferred  until  9 November 
1969.  On 21 August 1968, the SAF approved his request for a change 
of  effective  date  of  resignation to  10 November  1968,  contingent 
upon his acceptance of a Reserve commission. 

On  10 November  1968, applicant was  honorably  discharged  from  all 
appointments  in  the  Regular  Air  Force.  He  was  credited  with  4 
years,  9  months,  and  2  days  of  active  duty  service.  Effective 
10 November  1968, he was  appointed as captain, Reserve of  the Air 
Force, for an indefinite term.  He had active and inactive service 
in  the  Air  Force  Reserve. 
Effective  23  August  1978,  he  was 
assigned to the Retired Reserve Section and his name was placed on 
the USAF Reserve Retired List  (not eligible for retired pay  at age 
60).  An  ANG/USAFR  Retirement Credit  Summary, prepared  28 October 
1978,  reflects  that  he  had  a  total  of  8  years,  4  months,  and  29 
days of satisfactory service for retirement. 

Examiner’ s  Note : 
Attempts  to  locate  the  applicant‘s  service 
medical  records  through  the  National  Personnel Records  Center  and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs were unsuccessful. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Appeals and  SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application 
and  recommended  that  the  application  be  time-barred,  stating  the 
untimeliness  of  this appeal  and  lack  of  documentation, other  than 
the applicant’s recollection of events which led to the evaluation, 
make  it  virtually  impossible  to  determine  the  merits  of  the 
application. 

DPPPAB provided information on locating retired persons through the 
Air Force Worldwide Locator. 

2 

AFBCMR 97-02760 

Air  Force  policy  is  that  an  evaluation  report  is  accurate . . .  as 
written when  it becomes  a matter  of  record.  It takes substantial 
evidence  to  the  contrary  to have  a  report  changed  or  voided.  In 
the absence  of  information from the  rating chain of the contested 
report, it appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance 
with  Air  Force  policy  in  effect  at  the  time  it  was  rendered. 
Further,  there  is  no  evidence,  other  than  the  applicant’s  own 
contentions,  the  report  was  not  rendered  in  good  faith  by  the 
evaluators concerned. 

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW  OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

After  citing  the  provisions  of  the  Privacy  Act,  applicant  stated 
that  the  contested  report  was  created  as  a  slanderous attempt  at 
discrediting  him  because  he  refused  to  take  part  in  illegal  and 
reprehensible acts that were being perpetrated by a small number of 
his fellow officers.  It was  false and libelous at the time it was 
made  and  it  continues  to  be  false  and  libelous. 
Air  Force 
regulations  provide  for  a  time  limit  for  correction unless  there 
are serious reasons  for extending that limit.  Because this record 
might  well  have  played  a  major  role  in  his  failure  to  find  any 
employment in the United  States for almost  30 years, it  should be 
accepted  by  any  reasonable  person  that  a  serious  reason  for 
correcting it actually exists. 

He  further  stated  that  the  rest  of  the  record  labeled  “In  Flight 
and  Ground  Psychiatric  Evaluation” should  have  been  maintained  by 
the Air  Force.  The missing part of this record provides important 
material evidence to show why his record should be corrected. 

Applicant‘s complete response 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  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3.  Applicant’s  request  for  an  investigation  of  the  circumstances 
surrounding  the  filing  of  the  contested  OER  is  duly  noted. 
However, the Board is not an investigative body.  The decisions of 
the Board  are based  on  a careful review of  the evidence provided, 
as  well  as  the  available  military  record.  The  burden  of  proof 
rests  with  the  individual  applicant  to  provide  evidence  to 
substantiate  his/her  allegations  that  an  error  or  injustice  h a s  
occurred. 

3 

AFBCMR  97-02760 

4.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting 
corrective  action.  Evaluators  are  tasked with  the  responsibility 
of  assessing  a  ratee’s  performance,  honestly  and  to  the  best  of 
their  ability,  based  on  their  observation  of  an  individual’s 
We  have  noted  the  documents  provided  with  the 
performance. 
applicant’s  submission. 
However,  other  than  applicant’s  own 
assertions,  we  find  that  no  evidence  has  been  presented  showing 
that the  evaluators  on  the  contested report were  unable  to render 
unbiased  assessments  of  the  applicant‘s  performance  or  that  the 
ratings  on  the  report  were  based  on  factors  other  than  his  duty 
performance  during  the  contested  rating  period.  In  view  of  the 
foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we 
conclude that  there  is no basis  upon  which  to  recommend favorable 
action  on  the  applicant’s  request  for  removal  of  the  contested 
report from his records. 
5.  The  AFBCMR  is  not  the  custodian  of  the  applicant’s  master 
military personnel records.  Therefore, we are unable to respond to 
his  request  €or  a  list  of  agencies  or  individuals  who  have  had 
access  to  the  contested  report. 
The  custodian  of  h i s   official 
records  is  the  National  Personnel  Records  Center  ( N P R C )  . 
We 
suggest that the applicant contact that agency with respect to this 
issue.  Their address  is NPRC,  9700 Page Boulevard, St.  Louis, MO 
63132. 

6.  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  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this  application  in 
Executive  Session  on  6 October  1998, under  the  provisions  of  A F I  
36-2603: 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member 

4 

AFBCMR  97-02760 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug  97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 24 Oct 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Nov 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Nov  97. 

Panel Chair 

5 

AFBCMR  97-02760