RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01603
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 13 Jun 98
through 12 Jun 99 be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Corrections were made to the contested referral report which added
information and changed the content/meaning of the report without an
additional referral to the ratee for review and rebuttal.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and copies of the contested report.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate that he was
voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 1 Jun 94 as a second
lieutenant.
He was voluntarily discharged from all appointments in the Air Force
on 23 Jun 00 under the provisions of AFI 36-3207 (Misconduct) and
furnished a general discharge. He was credited with 6 years and 23
days of active service.
Applicant's OPR profile follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
31 May 95 Meets Standards
31 May 96 Meets Standards
18 Feb 97 Meets Standards
12 Jun 98 Training Report
* 12 Jun 99 Did Not Meet Standards (Referral)
12 Jun 00 Meets Standards
* Contested Report.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report,
which is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial indicating the applicant never noted
that the comments on the report, concerning the two driving under the
influences (DUIs) he received and not reporting them to the commander,
were false. He only contended that the report was not administered
correctly. According to AFI 36-2402, the report was administered
correctly and, with no argument from the applicant, the information on
the report was also correct.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant indicated that due to the facts proving the report was not
only administered incorrectly but also contained false information, he
reiterates his request to have the contested report voided and removed
from his records.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.
A copy of the FBI Report was forwarded to applicant on 15 Sep 03 for
review and response. As of this date, no response has been received
by this office (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE noted the applicant’s rebuttal and indicated that they
stand by their initial assessment of the applicant’s case.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit H.
AFPC/JA recommended denial indicating that the applicant has failed to
present relevant evidence of any error or injustice warranting any
relief. Should the Board decide to provide some remedy to the
applicant, they believe the deletion of a comment in the contested OPR
referencing his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) is more
appropriate than removal of the entire report. However, in their
view, this reference is, at most, a technical error that is harmless
under the circumstances and requires no remedy.
A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
applicant on 19 Dec 03 for review and response. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit J).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant’s complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s uncorroborated
assertions and the documentation presented in support of his appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). No clear-cut evidence
has been presented which shows to our satisfaction that the OPR
closing 12 Jun 99 was an inaccurate depiction of his performance at
the time it was originally prepared. We took note of the applicant’s
argument that the OPR erroneously contained comments that he was
convicted for a DWI because the disposition of the case was deferred
adjudication. However, we agree with AFPC/JA’s assessment that the
reference in the OPR to the conviction was a harmless, technical
error. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered
either an error or an injustice. Accordingly, the applicant’s request
that his OPR closing 12 Jun 99 be voided and removed from his records
is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2003-01603 in Executive Session on 10 Feb 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 16 Jun 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jun 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, dated 7 Jul 03, w/atch.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Sep 03.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Nov 03, w/atch.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 1 Dec 03.
Exhibit J. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01666 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 126.03, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Any mention of a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for an alleged unprofessional relationship be removed from her records, including her officer performance report (OPR) closing 5 May 99. In JA’s view, relief should be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00494
The ERAB denied his request because the statement made by the additional rater in Section VII, Line 5, of the OPR is not considered referral in nature. Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 8 May 03. CAROLYN J. WATKINS-TAYLOR Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-00494 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01104
Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 29 Mar 92 5 29 Mar 93 5 29 Mar 94 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 96 5 31 Jan 97 5 31 Jan 98 5 31 Jan 99 5 31 Jan 00 5 31 Jan 01 5 * 31 Mar 02 4 (referral) 1 Jan 03 5 * Contested report. He indicated that at the time his EPR would have closed out, the applicant was under investigation for an alleged assault incident that occurred on 25 Jan 02. The evidence of record indicates that a CDI was conducted into allegations...
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 20 Apr 99 and to place a statement in his records. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB. The applicant provides information that he believes supports his contention that his duty performance never suffered from issues involving his family.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02525
Counsel indicates that AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory also incorrectly states that the PLOA is not the reason for the referral TR because the TR only mentions the applicant being admonished and not the PLOA itself. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/JA provided an evaluation of the applicant’s case. While rejecting counsel’s assertion the letter of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03034
The applicant’s rater was a Marine Corps officer; his additional rater was an Air Force Brigadier General who was aware of Air Force policies concerning evaluation reports. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states he submitted as evidence his selection as Air Force Physicist of the year for 2001, his...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02137
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Nov 03 for review and response. No evidence has been provided which would lead us to believe that the applicant’s evaluators were unable to render an unbiased evaluation of his performance or that the ratings on the contested report were based on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01894
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01894 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 5 July 1990 through 4 January 1991, be declared void and removed from her records. Prior to the applicant’s break in service, during the period...