ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01510
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 5
Feb 99 through 4 Feb 00 be voided and removed from his records.
He be considered by special selection board (SSB) for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board and any subsequent boards as applicable.
__________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 1 Sep 04, the AFBCMR considered and denied the requests from the
applicant as stated above (Exhibit G). In an 11-page letter with 27
attachments, the applicant requests a “reexamination” of his case by the
Board because his complaints were not properly investigated. The
applicant contends he did not receive two change of reporting official
(CRO) evaluations although he had at least 120 days of supervision from
the closeout date of the previous report when his rater departed on a
permanent change of station (PCS) move and again when he was reassigned
PCS. He provides a timeline of the closeout dates of OPRs he received and
the dates of the PCS moves made by him and his rater.
The applicant states that the background violations of the complaints he
made in an Inspector General (IG) complaint were not investigated. He
submits a copy of the original AF Form 102, “Inspector General Personal
and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Complaint Registration” form he submitted and
notes the following complaints about the IG process:
a. Air Force Instructions were violated in that among other
violations no appointment letter for a Critical Incident Stress Management
(CISM) Manager for the Wing was ever given to anyone for the time period
of Jul 99-Jul 00, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.
b. Proper safety nets for potential suicide victims were
prevented from being initiated and empowered from the Wing staff level,
yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.
c. A potential suicide victim was not properly screened and was
not given the correct tools or aid to prevent his death, yet no wrongdoing
has been substantiated.
d. The chain of command was not available to agencies such as
CISM Managers, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.
e. The IG’s office only interviewed two of eight witnesses
pertinent to his case—one of which was the one his complaint was against,
yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.
The applicant references specific passages of the IG report of
investigation (ROI) to support his claims. He provides his interpretation
and explanation of what is wrong with the ROI and why he should be granted
the relief he has requested.
The applicant’s complete new submission is at Exhibit H.
__________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has not been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice. Regarding his contested OPR, the
applicant states he is not able to obtain the records essential to his
case, specifically the records of two of his previous raters. However, he
has not provided any evidence of efforts on his part to obtain evidence or
support from the raters such as their verification of the periods they
served as his rater and if a CRO should have been accomplished. We note
that this Board is not an investigative body and that it is incumbent on
every applicant to provide the evidence needed to support their case. The
bulk of the applicant’s current contentions center around his view that
the Inspector General (IG) failed to adequately investigate the complaints
he made. As part of our review of his case, we obtained the unredacted
versions of the IG reports in question. We note that the applicant’s
complaints were reviewed by various levels within the IG system. In fact,
it appears that his current request is the same as the complaint he filed
with the DOD IG Special Inquiries regarding his dissatisfaction with the
investigation of his complaints. However, we find the applicant’s
evidence is insufficient for us to come to a different conclusion than the
IG regarding the complaints he filed. In our view, the IG has
sufficiently addressed the applicant’s complaints and it is not within the
authority of this Board to request that the IG reopen its investigation.
Additionally, as previously stated, the applicant’s complaints have
already been reviewed at different levels of the IG system, including the
DOD IG. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to grant the relief the applicant is seeking.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application in
Executive Session on 3 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. John E.B. Smith, Member
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceeding, w/atchs, dated 7 Oct 04.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jun 05, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01510
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration since AFPC/DPPPE has recommended that the contested OPR not be voided. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004- 01510 in Executive Session on...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05413
On 7 Mar 11, the applicant was removed from command due to a loss of confidence by his rater and received a command directed referral performance report. As a result of the UCA, his rater issued him a Letter of Counseling (LOC). Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record, and is a representation of the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his PRF for the P0696B Board, a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), a statement from his rater, his Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 29 February 1996, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). If the Board finds that the documentation was unjust and corrective action is appropriate, then for the reasons indicated above, DPAIP2 recommended one of...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01081
The applicant then discussed his concerns with the MEO office, and filed a complaint with his Wing IG against the supervisor alleging reprisal. On 13 Jan 11, he filed a new reprisal complaint with the IG against his supervisor, based upon his OPR and his removal as a supervisor. On 16 Aug 11, the Department of Defense (DoD) IG notified the Air Force IG (SAF/IGQ) they had reviewed the Air Force Report of Investigation into the allegations of reprisal submitted by the applicant, and agreed...
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01997
On 20 Jan 04, the applicant initiated an AF Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration , alleging reprisal and abuse of authority by his chain of command relative to his EPR and his request for extension of his (DEROS). On 20 Dec 05, the applicant was notified by Headquarters, Air Mobility Command Office of the Inspector General (HQ AMC/IG) of its findings regarding his allegations. SAF/IG reviewed the HQ AMC/IG report of investigation and...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00911
Personnel who do not perform at expected standards or require close supervision may believe that an evaluator is personally biased. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Aug 02 for review and response (Exhibit E). JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2002-00911 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
Allegation that applicant failed to set the example as commander and an officer by violating unit policies was not substantiated. All but one of the allegations were substantiated. Should the Board determine that the evidence in the existing case file is insufficient to render its decision, JA would agree with DPPP that the Board should review a complete copy of the original report of investigation conducted in this case.