ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-01611

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the reporting 
period 7 Jun 07 through 9 Nov 07, be declared void and removed 
from her military personnel records.

________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 24 Mar 10, the Board considered and denied applicant’s 
original request to void the contested OPR and amend her 
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).  In the initial case, she 
contended that contested OPR was unjust because at the time it 
was prepared, it did not comply with multiple provisions of the 
governing instruction and as a result, she did not receive fair 
consideration for a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation on 
her PRF.  If she had received a DP recommendation, she would 
have been selected for in-residence Senior Developmental 
Education (SDE).  While the Board did not find the evidence 
sufficient to void the contested report, it did recommend 
amending the additional rater comments in the contested OPR.  
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the 
applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier 
decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at 
Exhibit I (with Exhibits A through H).

On 3 Nov 10, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request 
for reconsideration of her application indicating that her 
request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the 
Board.  By law, reconsideration is authorized only where newly 
discovered relevant information has been presented that was not 
available when the application was originally submitted and the 
Board determined that the applicant had not submitted new and 
relevant information meeting the criteria for reconsideration 
(Exhibit J).

By virtue of a DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 12, with attachments, 
the applicant requests reconsideration of her case, indicating 
that a miscommunication with the AFBCMR staff precluded her from 
being able to provide comments or file a Complaint Pursuant to 
Article 138, UCMJ in regard to the Command Directed 
Investigation (CDI) that was used by the Board to make a 
determination in her case.  Because she was not aware that the 
Board was going to use the CDI as part of their decision 
process, she was untimely in filing her Article 138, UCMJ 
Complaint.  On 8 Oct 11, she filed an Application for Redress 
Under Article 138, UCMJ challenging the validity of the CDI and 
requesting a statement of support to have her OPR removed from 
her permanent record.  On 10 Dec 11, the 12th Air Force Commander 
denied the applicant’s request  indicating that her request was 
untimely and also finding the CDI to be thorough and legally 
sufficient.  He found no evidence that would justify granting 
relief in her case and recommended she address her concerns with 
the AFBCMR.  

In support of her request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement, a copy of her Article 138, UCMJ Complaint, various 
supporting statements and emails pertaining to the CDI, and a 
copy of the original AFBCMR Record of Proceedings and Directive.

The applicant’s complete submission, including attachments, is 
at Exhibit L.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided 
in support of her request, we remain unconvinced the applicant 
has been a victim of an error or injustice.  We have previously 
determined the applicant’s request to void the contested OPR was 
not warranted and we still find no basis to grant the relief 
requested.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, 
we do not find her latest submission sufficient to persuade us 
that she is the victim of an error or injustice.    While the 
applicant makes a variety of arguments intended to impugn the 
actions of her chain of command and the efforts of the 
investigating officer assigned to conduct the objectionable CDI, 
much of what she provides in support of her instant request 
consists of additional arguments on the evidence of record and 
documents that this Board has already considered in the previous 
iterations of this case.  As the applicant has been previously 
advised, reconsideration is only authorized when new evidence is 
presented that was not available when the initial application 
was originally filed.  However, the vast majority of the new 
evidence the applicant provides consists of supporting 
statements from several former colleagues and subordinates 
attesting to her positive attributes as an officer and commander 
and their bewilderment at the outcome of the investigation.  
However, we do not find the opinions by personnel who were 
neither members of the applicant’s chain of command, nor 
involved in the conduct of the investigation, rendered years 
after the events in question, sufficient to undermine the 
results of the CDI.  Furthermore, while the applicant argues 
that an alleged mis-communication with the Board staff precluded 
her from reviewing the CDI or taking timely action to file an 
Article 138 complaint, we do not find these assertions 
sufficient to conclude that her ability to prove that she was 
the victim of an error or injustice was somehow compromised.  In 
this respect, we note that our prescribing directive clearly 
indicates that applicants will have access to all records 
considered by the Board, except those classified or privileged.  
The CDI Report is a privileged document, which the Board is not 
the custodian of, and falls under the exception to this 
provision.  Additionally, according to documentation provided by 
the applicant, the 12th Air Force Commander, when reviewing her 
Article 138 complaint, took the added step of thoroughly 
reviewing the CDI Report in question and concluded that it was 
both thorough and legally sufficient.  Therefore, in view of the 
above, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable 
consideration of the applicant’s request.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or 
injustice; 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-2009-01611 in Executive Session on 19 Sep 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                      , Panel Chair
                      , Member
                      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit I.  Record of Proceedings, dated 24 Mar 10,
                 w/Exhibits A through H.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Jun 10.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Nov 10.
     Exhibit L.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 12, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair