RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01889 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period 
5 Jun 07 through 4 Jul 08 be removed, expunged, and permanently 
removed from her records. 

 

2. Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 16 Jun 08, be removed 
from her records. 

 

3. Any other negative or prejudicial documents relating to her 
LOR or referral OPR be removed from her records. 

 

4. She be given an opportunity to attend in-residence 
Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) appropriate to her 
year group. 

 

5. Her permanent change of station (PCS) medal that was 
terminated be awarded. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant states she received an unjust letter of reprimand 
for the charges of forcing resolution of a financial dispute, 
encouraging an unprofessional relationship, and her NATO 
International Evaluation Record (IER) was marked below standard. 
The applicant provides a copy of an 18-page statement, with 
attachments, prepared for a Congressional complaint she filed. 
The applicant requests in the statement that eight areas of 
evidence be reviewed: 

 

 1. That all the original charges of the weak LOR be reviewed. 

 

 2. Review her rebuttal to the LOR. 

 

 3. Examine the partial transcripts of the taped conversation 
between she and her commander. She believes the conversation 
she had with her commander was the real reason and motive for 
the LOR. The commander informed her that she had created extra 
work for him and that he was aware that subordinates had gone to 
the Inspector General (IG) and Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) 
office. He assumed she had done the same and blamed her for 
being pressured into doing an investigation. Based on her 


conversations with the commander, she believes she is the victim 
of reprisal. 

 

 4. Evaluate the emails her area defense counsel (ADC) wrote 
to her leadership advising them they had a weak LOR that was not 
based on true misconduct. 

 

 5. Review the statement by the individual she was accused of 
encouraging to participate in an unprofessional relationship. 

 

 6. Analyze her rebuttal to the referral OPR. 

 

 7. Examine the revised referral OPR and notice how the 
financial charge is dropped, but the commander still insists 
that she alone encouraged an inappropriate relationship, that 
she was removed from a position even though she was being 
considered for a better job, and that on her NATO IER, she 
received below standard mark-downs twice. 

 

 8. Look at other documentation such as how her request to 
meet her new rater and receive feedback is ignored until it is 
too late. Look at her cancelled PCS orders and question those 
on her character reference list. 

 

In the remaining pages of her statement the applicant gives a 
detailed accounting of what took place leading to the actions 
she is contesting. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of an 
18-page congressional complaint of evidence, with attachments; 
the LOR and contested OPR with attachments, emails, a 
conversation transcript with her former commander, memoranda for 
record, a witness statement, character reference/witness lists, 
and extracts from her master personnel records. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is presently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major having assumed that grade effective and with 
a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 Nov 06. 

 

On 14 Mar 08, a Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) of the 
work climate in the unit was initiated. On 14 Apr 08, the staff 
judge advocate determined the CDI was legally sufficient and 
that while no standards had been clearly breached, the conduct 
of the applicant and others had negatively affected good order 
and discipline. The commander was advised that he had broad 
discretion to address the conduct of the individuals to include 
Letters of Couseling, feedbacks, or personnel changes. 


 

On 16 Jun 08, the applicant received an LOR for engaging in a 
pattern of poor judgment and conduct prejudicial to good order 
and discipline. Further, the applicant’s commander received an 
approved extension to extend the close-out date of her OPR. 

 

On 30 Jun 08, the commander used the applicant’s LOR to 
established a UIF. However, the applicant was not placed on the 
Control Roster. 

 

A resume of the applicant’s OPRs follows: 

 

 CLOSE-OUT DATE OVERALL RATING 

 

 13 Nov 01 Meets Standards 

 13 Nov 02 Meets Standards 

 13 Nov 03 Meets Standards 

 4 Jun 04 Meets Standards 

 4 Jun 05 Meets Standards 

 4 Jun 06 Meets Standards 

 4 Jun 07 Meets Standards 

 *4 Jul 08 Does Not Meet Standards 

 4 Jun 09 Meets standards 

 

*Contested report. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial on removing the applicant’s LOR 
and UIF. DPSIM states that in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File, LORs are mandatory for file in the 
UIF for officer personnel. 

 

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPAOC states the applicant is in the 1997 year group and 
would have to complete in-residence IDE NLT September 2011. The 
Calendar Year 2009 (CY 2009) Developmental Education Designation 
Board convened in the fall of 2009 to determine primary and 
alternate attendees for the academic year 2010-2011. All IDE 
slots were allocated and all alternates were chosen. There are 
no remaining slots at this time. 

 

The complete DPAOC evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of voiding the contested report. 
DPSID states that although the applicant suggests she was the 
victim of reprisal, the best evidence would be an official equal 
opportunity and treatment (EOT) investigation, reviewed and 
validated by appropriate officials and as an alternative, the 
use of statements from officials in the rating chain or other 
credible sources who have firsthand knowledge of the 


discrimination. It appears the applicant did not file a 
complaint that she was the victim of reprisal until the OPR was 
a matter of record. Air Force policy is that an evaluation 
report is accurate as written at the time it is accomplished and 
when placed in the member’s permanent record. The additional 
rater and reviewer (senior rater) concurred with the rater’s 
decision as annotated on the OPR. The applicant was provided an 
opportunity to rebut the rater’s comments and in fact stated, “I 
cannot disprove every one of the allegations mentioned in my 
OPR.” The evidence presented supports the evaluator’s remarks 
and ratings on the OPR and; therefore, no error or injustice has 
occurred. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPAPF makes no recommendation. DPAPF states the 
applicant is outside of her widow of consideration for IDE. If 
she went now, she would not be with her peers and if she does 
not attend, she cannot be granted grades and credit for 
coursework she never performed. A permanent deferment would 
allow future promotion boards to see that she was selected to 
go, but through no fault of her own, was not able to do so. 

 

The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 May 11 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit G). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. We took 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
The applicant’s numerous contentions are duly noted; however, we 
do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently 
persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale 
provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. We 


are not persuaded by the evidence that the actions taken by her 
commander were beyond his scope of authority, inappropriate, or 
arbitrary and capricious. We note that the applicant filed 
several complaints with the IG; however, according to the SAF/IG 
case file, none of the complaints warranted investigation. The 
applicant states the LOR is unjust and was based on personal 
reasons rather than true misconduct. Although the findings in 
the CDI Report state that no specific standards were violated, 
the investigation raised issues of the applicant’s officership, 
professionalism, and judgment. Additionally, it states she 
exercised poor judgment which negatively affected good order, 
discipline, and morale in her unit. Consequently, it appears 
there was a basis for the commander to question her officership 
and judgment and, consequently, take the administrative actions 
that he did. As such, and in the absence of persuasive evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant alleges she has been the victim of reprisal 
and has not been afforded full protection under the 
Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034). By policy, reprisal 
complaints must be filed within 60 days of the alleged incident 
or discovery to facilitate the IG’s investigation. We note, 
as stated above, the applicant filed several IG complaints; 
however, the available record does not substantiate that any of 
the complaints filed alleged reprisal and it appears no 
investigation was done. Nevertheless, we reviewed the evidence 
of record to reach our own independent determination of whether 
reprisal occurred. Based on our review, we do not conclude the 
applicant has been the victim of reprisal. The applicant has 
not established that she ever made a protected communication and 
the OPR, LOR, UIF or other actions were rendered in retaliation 
to aking a protected communication. Therefore, it is our 
determination the applicant has not been the victim of reprisal 
based on the evidence of record in this case. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket Number BC-
2010-01889 in Executive Session on 29 June 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 18 Jun 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAOC, dated 15 Dec 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPF, dated 12 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair