ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03453
INDEX CODE: 111.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period
30 January 2000 through 15 February 2001, be amended by
correcting or deleting lines 8 and 9 in Section VI, Rater
Overall Assessment. Or in the alternative, the OPR be removed
from his records.
In the applicants rebuttal at Exhibit J, the applicant requests
that his record be considered for promotion to the grade of
colonel (Col) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 2008A (CY08A) Col Central Selection Board (CSB).
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on
17 June 2008. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicants appeal and the rationale of the
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at
Exhibit F.
In a letter dated 24 December 2008, the applicant requests
reconsideration. He states the error is obvious and the
implications are enormously false regarding the OPR statement,
unprofessional relationships with enlisted personnel. This
implies that he had an unprofessional relationship with more
than one enlisted individual.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit G.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states although the
evidence submitted by the applicant indicates there was only one
unprofessional relationship with an enlisted member, the
evaluators may have been privy to information that was not made
available to the board. Additionally, since the civilians
spouse was an enlisted member, and the one who reported the
inappropriate emails, it is possible the evaluators chose to use
the plural verbiage to show that more than one enlisted member
was affected by the unprofessional relationship, not to mention
all the enlisted personnel who believed there was an appearance
of unprofessional behavior. Unfortunately, DPSIDEP does not
know the intent of the evaluators, since the applicant did not
provide any statements from his evaluators. DPSIDEP is not
convinced the OPR is inaccurate or unjust.
The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANTS REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states the conclusion reached by his commander to
act on unsubstantiated evidence was in gross error. However, he
respects and honors the 2 July 2008 recommendation from the
AFBCMR that his commander did act within his scope and
authority. Although his commander operated within his power to
issue the referral OPR ending 15 February 2001, he did not have
the authority to intentionally mislead, deceive or inaccurately
document his military record in order to give the wrong
impression regarding the facts discovered during the CDI. In
the referral OPR, his commander deliberately embellished the
circumstances three times in order to intensify the punishment
of his career. For the past eight years, the exaggerated
implications regarding his military record have been
misinterpreted by wing commanders, squadron commanders, group
commanders, promotion boards, dental development assignment
teams and his supervisors. Unfortunately, his career can never
be made whole from the additional damage already done by these
designated superfluities.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit J.
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After a
careful reconsideration of his requests and his most recent
submission, we do not find it sufficient to warrant a revision
of the Boards earlier determination. We agree with the opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider
this application.
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2007-03453 in Executive Session on 11 May 2010, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, 2 July 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 December 2008,
w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 17 February 2009.
Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 February 2009.
Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 February 2009,
w/atchs.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03453
He denies that he fraternized or engaged in an unprofessional relationship with either his spouse or the spouse of an enlisted member. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. JA has thoroughly reviewed the CDI at issue, and finds no legal deficiency to support applicant’s argument that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations against him.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2008-01257
He was represented by counsel before the BOI and the Air Force Discharge Review Board; however, the evidence submitted by the applicant and counsel did not convince either board that the applicant did not engage in serious and reoccurring misconduct which led to his discharge. The BOI members found the preponderance of the government’s evidence to be credible and sufficient to support the findings of wrongdoing and a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Nevertheless, since we...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC 2008 00538
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a statement from her counsel; and, copies of her LOR, response to the LOR, Referral OPR, request to the Evaluation Review Appeals Board (ERAB) to remove the contested report, work schedules, memorandum for record, Performance Feedback, character references, ERAB decision, Promotion Recommendation, Officer Performance Reports, Education/Training Report, award and decoration documents, and articles on Nursing. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01268
On 23 October 2006, his commander directed a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) be conducted to investigate allegations of ineffective leadership and a detrimental command climate in the applicant’s squadron. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded stating the CDI was not the reason for his relief of command. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDED...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03790
DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrant correction or removal from an individuals record. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit F).
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02430
Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) rendered for the P0507B promotion board be replaced with the PRF she provided. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and states since her PRF did not contain information from her OPR a new PRF was written to reflect the information in the OPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01079
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C through E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the LOR and UIF indicating the proper procedures were followed for issuing the LOR and there was insufficient evidence to warrant removing the UIF. The applicant does not provide any evidence to...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01832
The only reference to the DUI is in the referral letter, which can be corrected to match the OPR upon receipt of verification the DUI charges were dropped. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded the contested report is in error or unjust. Moreover, he has not provided evidence to show the DUI charges were in fact dismissed, or that he was not convicted of the DUI in question.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01027
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01027 INDEX CODE: 111.02 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested OPR was a direct result of a letter of reprimand (LOR) received for actions he denied. As of this...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04085
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-04085 INDEX CODE: 111.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of 1 April 2004 through 26 February 2005 and his P0505A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be voided and removed from his records. DPSIDEP states if the applicant...