RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:BC-2002-03385
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 11 May
2000 through 10 May 2001 be declared void and he receive Special
Selection Board consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by the Calendar Years 2001B (CY01B) and 2002A (CY02A)
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested OPR included a statement from a former supervisor who
manipulated a former employee to file a sexual harassment complaint in
order to discredit him. This supervisor had a substantial personality
conflict with him and sought to use this complaint to destroy his
career. He was never punished for any such offense; however, this
same supervisor succeeded in convincing the chain of command to trust
his judgment and agree to persecute him. Numerous statements are
provided to demonstrate the unfair behavior of the supervisor
including a statement from the claimant indicating that his actions
were against her wishes.
In support of the applicant’s appeal, he submits a copy of the
contested OPR, Evaluation Report Appeal Board Letter, and statements
from co-workers.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of lieutenant colonel.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade
of colonel by the CY01B and CY02B Colonel Selection Boards.
On 12 December 2001, the applicant appealed the contested report under
the provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeal was considered and
returned without action by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).
The ERAB recommended that the applicant request a new and impartial
investigation into the case by an agency not affiliated with the
medical organization or the chain of command, such as, the 81 TRW/IG
or 81 TRW/MEO offices. The findings of this new and independent
investigation will ensure the applicant receives due process. These
findings can then be resubmitted in another appeal, if desired.
Applicant’s OPR profile since 2002, follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
31 Jan 96 Meets Standards (MS)
31 Jan 97 MS
31 Jan 98 MS
31 Jul 98 MS
18 Jun 99 MS
10 May 00 MS
* 10 May 01 Referral
08 Jul 02 Referral
* Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPO recommend the AFBCMR deny the applicant’s request to void
the 10 May 2001 OPR. After careful review of the contested OPR, it is
clear that the was report referred for two reasons; 1) applicant’s
lack of leadership, and 2) substantiated case of sexual harassment.
IAW AFI 36-2406, para 1.3.2, “evaluation reports must reflect serious
or repeated occurrences of discrimination, to include sexual
harassment…” The rating chain and commander determine the
“seriousness” of the sexual harassment. In the applicant’s case, the
rating chain and commander determined it serious enough to include it
in the 10 May 2001 OPR. There is no discrepancy identified in the
applicant’s OPR as it relates to Air Force Evaluation Policy and
Procedures.
Although the applicant has provided many supporting memorandums from
co-workers and friends, he failed to substantiate his allegations of
bias through proper channels (i.e. MEO Investigation, Commander
Directed Investigation, or an IG Investigation). The applicant’s
reasoning behind not pursuing an MEO or IG investigation is due to
“the commander who had made the original decision has changed
assignments, the general officer (MDG/CC) has returned me to the duty
section and there doesn’t appear to be any other remedy for this
situation other than to remove the OPR which referenced the sexual
harassment.” These reasons do not excuse the applicant from proving
his allegations that the rating chain was biased toward him. The MEO
or IG is still very real avenues to pursue in an effort to
substantiate his allegations. If his rating chain were in fact biased
towards him, an investigation into this matter would substantiate it.
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written
when it becomes a matter of record. There are no errors or injustices
cited in the 10 May 2001 OPR. The commander directed an investigation
into matter concerning sexual harassment, which were substantiated.
The rating chain and commander determined that it was appropriate to
mention this within his 10 May 2001 OPR. The investigation also
turned up concerns surrounding his Leadership abilities, which was
also mentioned with the OPR. Bottom line, the applicant failed to
provide supporting documentation (i.e. MEO, IG investigation) to
substantiate his allegation of bias.
AFPC/DPPPE complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial. The applicant contends that his rating
chain maliciously and vindictively ruined his career by including a
substantiated allegation of sexual harassment in his OPR. The
applicant further states that the complainant was manipulated into
filing a sexual harassment complaint against him; however, in the
complainant’s memorandum dated 7 August 2001, she reiterates that it
is her belief that the applicant did say and do things that were in an
sexual manner. The commander directed an investigation into the
comment(s) and upon completion, sexual harassment was substantiated
(is only fair to point out that the applicant alleges that there were
discrepancies and improprieties with the commander directed
investigation). They reviewed the findings in AFPC/DPPPE advisory,
and have nothing further to add. Since that advisory recommends
denial, SSB consideration is not warranted.
AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that he
has conceded that the evaluator is correct in pointing out that a
follow-up investigation by MEO or IG would have been beneficial. In
his defense, he would like to point out that he contact MEO and was
told only the commander can request this investigation, that MEO staff
are merely consultants to be used if requested by the commander. It
was shortly after this that he learned of his diagnosis of an advanced
stage of cancer and his thoughts were not with making an IG complaint,
but surviving chemotherapy and the cancer. Given the fact that the
advisory board has not recommended that this OPR be voided and the
injustice overturned, he will seek the office of the IG in case it
isn’t too late to remedy this situation. He will forward their
findings or recommendation should the IG feel it is possible to still
investigate the circumstances.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that the contest report should be voided. Applicant’s
allegations concerning the investigation into his conduct is duly
noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and
by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
provided by the Air Force. Furthermore, we see no evidence that there
were any improprieties in the commander's decision to relieve him of
his supervisory duties or that his commander abused his discretionary
authority in doing so. The applicant provided statements from outside
the rating chain, but he did not present any credible evidence from
his rating chain or other agencies to support his contentions.
Applicant states tht he is filing a complaint with the IG and if it is
found that the allegations against him are false he should submit the
results to the Board for consideration. Therefore, absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to
recommend granting the relief sought.
____________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2002-
03385 in Executive Session on 3 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. OSI Report, dated 28 May 02 - WITHDRAWN.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 Dec 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 17 Dec 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 03, w/atchs.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02531
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 4 September 2002. The applicant has failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain on the contested performance report. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Sep 06.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03385A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03385 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s appeal for reconsideration, he requests that the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 11 May 2000 through 10 May 2001 be declared void and he receive Special Selection Board consideration for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02499
The IG dismissed the complaint because documented evidence against the complainant supported the 2 EPR rating. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are unpersuaded that the contested EPR should be removed from her record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 6 Jul 99 through 3 Nov 99 be removed from his records. The primary argument to delete the referral OPR is detailed in his rebuttal to the OPR and in his IG complaint. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states that he never disputed that he made mistakes.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03828
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03828 INDEX CODE: 111.02 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 26 July 2000 through 11 June 2001 and all accompanying attachments be declared void and he be considered for promotion by a special selection board (SSB). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01818
He received one AF Form 475 dated 14 June 2001 to document his elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) due to flying deficiencies. The environment presented at Vance AFB, was in direct violation of the Department of Defense, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the United States Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, the 71st Flying Training Wing, and the 25th Flying Training Squadron regulations policies, and guidelines concerning sexual harassment,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01883
On 10 March 2005, his commander initiated a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) into allegations the applicant improperly solicited a junior officer, improper use of government resources, and dereliction of duty. The applicant was provided all supporting documentation and given sufficient opportunity to respond to the removal action taken by his commander, and was provided legal counsel. The junior officer asked for the information the applicant provided.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01906
Copies of the reports of investigation are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states his engagement with the AF/IG, CSAF, and Senators came after he attempted to utilize his chain of command and the ROTC/IG, who as the vice commander was in his chain of command. Therefore the...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...