ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02340 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be reinstated in the Air Force Reserve. 

 

2. His two deferrals for promotion to the grade of major be 
removed from his records. 

 

3. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from his records. 

 

4. His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period 28 Oct 04 thru 27 Oct 05 be removed from his records. 

 

5. He be restored to flying status. 

 

6. He receive service credit from Sep 06 until the date of his 
reinstatement. 

 

7. He be retroactively promoted to the grade of major. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 4 Dec 07, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s 
request that his reassignment to inactive status be changed to 
indicate reassignment to the Inactive Status List Reserve 
Section (ISLRS), and that his two deferrals for promotion to the 
grade of major be removed from his record. For an accounting of 
the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of 
the Board’s earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit H (with Exhibits A thru G). 

 

On 17 May 12, the applicant’s counsel submitted a request for 
reconsideration. Counsel noted the Board’s decision in the 
matter of another officer demonstrated a bias and history on the 
part of the 93rd Fighter Squadron Commander (93 FS/CC), of 
wrongfully persecuting officers in his command. Counsel states 
that this is particularly relevant in the applicant’s case where 
one of the primary motivations behind the 93 FS/CC’s improper 
treatment of the applicant was retribution for his having 
“aligned himself” with the wrong person. 

 

The applicant states that although not reported in his previous 
application due to the difficulty of trying to prove it, his 


current request for relief is due to the injustices caused by 
the abuse of authority by his former commanders. The applicant 
states that he had been working towards collecting evidence to 
finally bring to light the whole truth and circumstances behind 
his dismissal from the 482nd Fighter Wing (FW) at the hands of 
the 93 FS/CC. He petitioned the chain of command for due 
process in an attempt to get the Air Force to investigate or 
even consider his case. There is a clear documented trail of 
these pleas for help with the 93 FS/CC’s abuse of authority that 
dates back to Jul 03, all of which were ignored. 

 

The applicant states that the true and vindictive nature of the 
93 FS/CC and his willingness to abuse his authority to serve his 
personal agenda and biases were finally confirmed by the Air 
Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). Captain H’s----
-- second BCMR application was granted once the AFOSI discovered 
extensive and irrefutable evidence to what the Commander, AFOSI 
labeled as “clear and disturbing evidence of criminal misconduct 
on behalf of Captain H------‘s commander.” The applicant 
contends that this is the same commander who abused his 
authority with him, and whom he had been attempting for years to 
get the Air Force to at least investigate his actions. At every 
attempt, the Air Force Reserve Center (AFRC) refused to take any 
action despite clear evidence it was presented with and 
continued to cover for the 93 FS/CC. These findings by AFOSI 
were finally, and fortunately, used to exonerate and reinstate 
Captain H------. 

 

The applicant states that he was contacted by the Air Force 
Inspector General (AF/IG) who is investigating now Brigadier 
General P------ for general officer misconduct. While he is not 
privy to the findings, he was informed by the AF/IG 
investigating officer (IO) that he may have also been a victim 
of General P------‘s abuse of authority. He agreed with that 
assessment; provided a statement and added his name as a 
complainant in the ongoing case. 

 

By letter dated 5 Jun 12, the applicant further explained his 
request for reconsideration. 

 

On 11 Feb 13, the applicant was notified that the SAF/IG did not 
substantiate his allegations of reprisal under the provisions of 
Title 10, USC 1034. SAF/IG stated that the IG investigation 
found no evidence to support the allegations against two former 
commanders of the 93rd FS. Specifically, the investigation 
determined that the adverse actions, which included a LOC, 
referral OPR, and LOR, were not arbitrary and capricious nor 
were they the result of a PC. A preponderance of the evidence 
showed that a pattern of performance and behavior existed which 
supported the actions taken by the commanders. In addition, 
SAF/IG reviewed the ROI and approved the findings. 
Additionally, the Department of Defense IG (DoD/IG) conducted a 
thorough review of the report and found that it adequately 
addressed his allegations, and concurred with its findings. 


 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit I 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The 
applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal and has not 
been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection 
Act (10 USC § 1034). Based on this, he is seeking a myriad of 
relief as indicated in the attached DD Form 149, Application for 
Correction of Military Records, with a 17-page brief and other 
evidence. We note that the SAF/IG investigated the allegations 
against two former commanders of the 93rd Fighter Squadron. 
However, they found no evidence to substantiate the applicant’s 
claims. The applicant asserts that his former commander 
initiated several adverse actions against him based on his bias 
against “guard babies” and him having “aligned himself” with the 
wrong person as retribution for writing an affidavit in support 
of a former co-worker’s rebuttal to a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
issued by his former commander. SAF/IG determined that the 
adverse actions, which included two Letters of Counseling (LOC), 
referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), and an LOR, were not 
arbitrary or capricious nor were they the result of a protected 
communication. The applicant also asserts that the chain of 
command was illegally and unjustly targeting certain members of 
the command. In essence, he believes his appeal is similar to 
AFBCMR 2007-03405 and that relief should be considered using the 
same rationale to grant his request. However, we disagree. In 
this regard, every case before this Board is considered on its 
own merit since the circumstances of each case are seldom 
identical. In view of this, although we strive for consistency, 
we are not bound by precedent and evaluate the merits of each 
individual case to determine whether the applicant has been the 
victim of an error or injustice. After a careful review of 
AFBCMR 2007-03405, it was noted that the applicant in that case 
was the victim of substantiated reprisal. However, in the 
applicant’s case the evidence reveals that a pattern of 
performance and behavior existed which supported the actions 
taken by the commanders, rather than an act of reprisal. 
Additionally, we note that the applicant filed several IG 
complaints; however, SAF/IG and DoD/IG reviewed the allegations, 
to include alleged reprisal, and each time, the findings were 
unsubstantiated. Nevertheless, based on our own independent 
review, we did not find the former commander’s actions were 
arbitrary or capricious or that their actions were motivated in 
retaliation to making a protected communication. Other than his 
own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence, to 
include an affidavit from a former commander, that would 
convince us that he has been the victim of an error or 
injustice. Therefore, it is our determination the applicant has 


failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error 
or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 

 

2. 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 issue(s) 
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 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-2007-02340 in Executive Session on 21 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 5 Feb 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit I. Letter, Counsel, dated 17 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit K. Letter, SAF/IGS, dated 11 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair