RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01556
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period
from 3 Dec 06 2 Dec 07 be removed from his record.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and a referral OPR for
committing adultery with a female lieutenant and an
inappropriate relationship with his deputy squadron commanders
wife; however, the other individuals involved in the incidents
did not receive any adverse actions. The LOR and the referral
OPR are now negatively impacting his career.
He appealed the LOR, which has now been removed from his record.
Also, in Jan 10, he petitioned the Evaluation Reports Appeals
Board (ERAB) to void the contested report; however, his request
was denied.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement summarizing the events surrounding the LOR and the
contested report; a copy of his rebuttal package and additional
supporting documentation.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant received a LOR and a referral OPR for adultery
with a female lieutenant and for an inappropriate relationship
with the deputy squadron commanders wife. He submitted a
rebuttal to both the LOR and the referral OPR to further explain
his relationship with the deputy squadron commanders wife.
The applicants OPR profile of the last ten reports follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
02 Dec 01 Meet Standards (MS)
02 Dec 02 MS
27 Jun 03 Training Report (TR)
02 Dec 03 MS
02 Dec 04 MS
02 Dec 05 MS
02 Dec 06 MS
#02 Dec 07 MS
31 May 08 MS
22 May 09 MS
# Contested Report
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant
has not shown a clear error or injustice. The applicant
contends that the other individuals involved in the incidents
received no adverse action; however, while he provides several
character references, he offers no evidence that even suggests,
much less substantiate that the others involved in the incidents
received no adverse actions.
Furthermore, whether or not there were inconsistencies with the
types of punishment each individual may, or may not have
received, the OPR is still accurate. The applicant did in fact
receive a LOR for the incidents mentioned in the contested
report.
The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant notes that he did file an appeal through the ERAB.
Further, in regard to evidence that the others named in his
appeal did not receive any adverse action, hes not sure what
evidence he is suppose to produce. He states that it is a fact
that they did not face any adverse actions, so that in itself is
evidence. Beyond that, if these individuals had any adverse
actions against them, AFPC did not produce them.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice
of the applicant's complete submission, including his response
to the Air Force evaluation, in judging the merits of the case;
however, 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. While the applicant
believes that the other individuals involved in the incidents
did not receive any adverse actions, he has not provided
sufficient evidence to establish that this is so or if so, that
it makes him the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore,
based on the available evidence, we conclude the applicant has
not been the victim of 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.
4. 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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-01556 in Executive Session on 26 January 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 1 Jun 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jul 10.
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 | 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-2007-02792
Specifically, on 16 Oct 06, he was given a profile that stated he was not world-wide deployable. AFPC/DPSIDEP indicates they have reviewed the applicant’s request for removal of the contested EPR and found no evidence the report was in error or unjust. The evidence of record indicates the applicant was given an LOR for being negligent in the performance of his duties as an NCO, which was the basis for the referral EPR.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03421
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and copies of his contested OPR, statements from his accuser, and letters of support from his rating chain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 30 October 1997. DPSIDEP states the contested report contains accurate information that was known to the evaluators at the time the report was written.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03284
In support of his request, the applicant submits his personal statement, copies of the referral EPR memorandum, the referral EPR, his rebuttal statement, the initial referral EPR, an award nomination, a letter to his congressman, his student training report, a memorandum from his group superintendent, a statement of suspect/witness complaint, an evaluation appeals form, and a letter from his commander. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00763
She was under investigation from on/about 20 Dec 05 to 20 Jan 06. In addition, it is the commander’s responsibility to determine promotion testing eligibility. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 08.
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...
He indicates that he was denied access to documents or evidence in his case. He requested, but was denied the right to cross-examine his former supervisor and his wife. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-00735
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00735 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.03 131.09 COUNSEL: GARY R. MYERS HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 4 Oct 04, 23 Feb 05, and 18 Jul 05, be declared void and removed from her records. Her Referral Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 27 Mar 05 and 15 Aug 05 be...