RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02639
INDEX CODE: 111.01
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period
27 September 2002 through 4 May 2003 be declared void and removed from
his records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He disagrees with the results of the Commander Directed Investigation
(CDI), of which he was the subject. The Area Defense Counsel was
unable to acquire a copy of the CDI findings and therefore unable to
effectively assist him since the CDI was the basis for the punishment.
He believes the incensed husband made damaging and false accusations
against him and these accusations were taken more seriously than his
statements. Discarding the CDI report violates USAF System Notice
F051 AF JAI, Commander Directed Inquiries, dated 2 June 2002, 67 FR
38487.
In support of his request, applicant provided AF Form 948, Application
for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, a copy of his Letter of
Admonishment, documentation associated with his referral OPR and
background material related to case.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 5 June 2003. His total
active federal military service date (TAFMSD) is 5 July 1999.
The following is a resume of the applicant’s recent OPR profile:
PERIOD ENDINGS OVERALL EVALUATION
23 Dec 03 MEETS STANDARDS (MS)
4 May 03* DOES NOT MS
26 Sep 02 MS
26 Sep 01 MS
* - Referral Report
The applicant filed a similar request through the Evaluation Reports
Appeal Board (ERAB) and his request was denied on 7 May 2004, due to
lack of substantiating evidence.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial based on lack of substantiated evidence.
DPPE states the applicant contends a CDI was initiated for an
unprofessional relationship and resulted in a referral report. He has
attempted to gain a copy of the CDI, but to no avail. The CDI is not
relevant because the applicant admits the relationship took place.
Although the applicant feels the evaluators have over stressed an
isolated incident or a short period of substandard performance or
conduct, the evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their
significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing
performance and potential. Only the evaluators know how much an
incident influenced the report. If the evaluators feel the incident
should not have influenced the report, the evaluators must provide
specific information about the incident and why they now believe it
was overly emphasized. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable for
the evaluators to consider an incident that occurred 18 months
earlier, as long as it was not addressed or considered in a previous
report (para 3.7.6). In this case, it does not appear the incident
was considered in the previous reporting period since it was not known
at that time.
DPPE found no error in the report or the procedures in which it was
processed.
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15
Oct 2004 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an injustice. It appears the applicant may have been
involved in an relationship with a married civilian employee.
Applicant contends he was under the impression the woman was getting a
divorce and once he knew this wasn’t true, he no longer had any
contact with her. The woman’s husband believed the applicant’s
relationship with his wife was sexual in nature. The evidence before
the Board does not substantiate this allegation, but does suggest the
applicant used poor judgment concerning his relationship with the
civilian; however, we do not believe that applicant’s poor judgment
warranted issuance of the contested report. He received a letter of
admonishment and, in our opinion, was sufficiently punished. A copy
of the command directed investigation would have been helpful in
determining the true facts of the relationship. Nonetheless, we
believe had it been established that he was involved in a sexual
relationship with the civilian, his commander would have imposed a
more severe punishment. Therefore, we recommend that his records be
corrected to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Company Grade
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 27
September 2002 through 4 May 2003, be, and hereby is, declared void
and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-02639 in Executive Session on 9 December 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 7 Oct 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Oct 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-02639
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 Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the
Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the
period 27 September 2002 through 4 May 2003, be, and hereby is, declared
void and removed from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03620
The commander imposed nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ on 19 December 2002, for attempting to impede a CDI into his behavior by erasing his email traffic from his government computer; violating a lawful order by sending harassing, intimidating, abusive or offensive material; and for wrongfully having sexual intercourse with Ms. A---. The AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S...
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-2003-01731
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-01731 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 27 March 2001, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) P0401A and any associated memoranda regarding the referral period be removed from his records and his corrected record be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02352
The applicant concedes that this was a result of an incident involving a staff sergeant, but believes the incident was a misunderstanding and overstressed by his rater. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s counsel responded to the evaluations by indicating that they have demonstrated in their basic filing that the applicant’s rater was biased against him. We note...
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-2003-01968
As a result of the surgery, the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certifying official permanently decertified the applicant from PRP duties. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the DPSFM advisory confirms that there was no definitive policy or guidance concerning LASIK surgery for Space and Missile Operators. The evidence of record...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01168
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01168 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: J. RANDALL HICKS HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 October 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on 21 February 2005; the Unfavorable Information File (UIF); the Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 16 January 2005; the Promotion...
It was never referred to him nor were its contents made known to him until after it was a matter of record. However, they recommend the report be corrected by transferring its content to an AF Form 707B. Regarding applicant’s contention that he was never given a copy of the report, we note that, unless it is a referral report, the ratee will not be shown the prepared Air Force forms until the report is filed in the UPRG.
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 | CY2002 | BC-2001-00787
Because she was an outstanding officer up to the time of her improper removal from command, she should be promoted to lieutenant colonel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application and recommends denial. She has not submitted any evidence to support her claim and there is no evidence that he relied on rumors as a basis for admonishing her or relieving her from command.