RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04199 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period 2 May 2006 to 31 July 2006 be corrected or removed. 

 

2. He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel retroactively to 1 May 06, 
alongside those in his United States military attaché peer 
group. 

 

3. His Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) be updated to 
reflect appropriate changes for all the SSBs he is provided 
promotion consideration. 

 

4. He receive all back pay associated with the promotion to 
lieutenant colonel from 1 May 2006. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The contested OPR falsely characterizes the events, his 
performance and duties as the Assistant Air Attaché to China. 
He states that he executed the mission requirements per the 
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and leadership direction 
and at no time did his actions conflict with USDAO's SOP. The 
orders given by those appointed above him conflicted with normal 
business SOPs and in the aftermath led to an unfair evaluation. 
This "non-event" was used to derail his promotion and military 
career. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of Officer Background Information (Bio, Résumé 
& Service Record): Timeline of Events, 12 May 2006 – Present; 
copies of letters from the Secretary of the Air Force and 
Inspector General,; copies of letters to the Secretary of 
Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, the CY07B and CY08B 
Lieutenant Colonel Air Force Promotion Boards, the Air Force 
Education and Training Command Promotion Review Board and a host 
of letters and extracts from his military personnel and officer 
selection record. 

 

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

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving as a major, was assigned as an Air 
Attaché to China. The applicant was relieved from active duty 
on 31 January 2011 and retired with a 1 February 2011 effective 
date. He was credited with 20 years and 

16 days for active service for retirement. 

 

The applicant was considered and nonselected by the Calendar 
Year 2005A (CY05A), CY06A, CY06C, CY07B, CY08B, CY09B, and CYI0A 
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs). 

 

The applicant’s OPR profile of the last ten reports follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 01 Aug 03 Training Report (TR) 

 01 May 04 Meet Standards (MS) 

 30 Sep 04 TR 

 01 May 05 MS 

 01 May 06 MS 

 #01 Jul 06 Referral Report 

 31 Jul 07 MS 

 01 Sep 08 MS 

 25 Jun 09 MS 

 12 May 10 MS 

 

# Contested Report at the time he was considered and nonselected 
for promotion by the CY07B and subsequent Lieutenant Colonel 
CSBs. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained 
in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of his request to correct/remove 
the OPR, stating, in part, that the applicant has not proven 
that the contested report or PRFs are inaccurate or unjust. 

 

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 Mar 06 
due to the applicant no longer being on active duty; however, 


the ERAB reviewed this case and determined there was no evidence 
that the case was unjust or inaccurate. They note the applicant 
does not provide a substitute report. When an evaluator 
supports changing ratings, all subsequent evaluators (including 
the Management Level Review Board President on Promotion 
Recommendation Forms) must also agree to the changes. The 
willingness of evaluators to change a report is not enough. You 
must offer clear evidence that the original evaluation was unjust or wrong. Quality, not quantity of documentation is the 
issue. The most effective evidence consists of statements from 
the evaluators who signed the report or from other individuals 
in the rating chain when the report was signed. The applicant 
is also requesting to update his Promotion Recommendation Forms 
(PRFs), but he has not provided a substitute report. Paragraph 
1.3.7, states the board will not consider nor approve requests 
to reaccomplish a report without the applicant furnishing the 
new report. 

 

The applicant is also requesting removal of the 31 Jul 06 report 
if it cannot be corrected. However, the applicant could have 
provided this evidence when the referral report was given to him 
as he had the opportunity to rebut any derogatory comments. In 
addition, the additional rater states on the OPR that he 
carefully considered the applicants comments. The applicant 
provided several character witness statements; however, he does 
not provide one from the rating chain supporting his case. In 
addition, the witness statements he does provide seem to support 
the referral OPR. In addition, in a rebuttal memorandum dated 2 
Apr 07, the applicant has provided evidence that supports the 
referral report stating that it is true that these intelligence 
collection activities were in technical violation of the SOP. 
Although he is contesting the referral OPR, the evidence the 
applicant provided is actually supporting the referral report. 
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively 
challenge an OPR, it is necessary to hear from all the members 
of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for 
clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide 
any information or support from the rating chain on the 
contested OPR. In the absence of information from evaluators, 
official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector 
General (SAF/IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate. 
In this case, the applicant provided a memorandum from the IG 
dated 4 Aug 09 which stated that upon their office reviewing the 
applicant’s complaint along with his abundant documentation, 
they were unable to develop any evidence of a violation of law, 
standard or regulation to support allegations of wrong doing 
against the former U.S. Defense Attaché, U.S. Embassy, Beijing, 
China. DPSID concurs with the IG's decision and also finds no 
evidence of violations and does not support allegations of wrong 
doing. It appears the reports were accomplished in direct 
accordance with applicable Air Force regulations. 

 


The applicant stated in a memorandum, dated 1 Nov 10 that no 
feedback transpired and that the only feedback accomplished was 
by the previous supervisor on 28 Jan 04. He provides copies of 
the feedback forms; however, the applicant does not provide any 
evidence from the rating chain stating that feedback did not 
occur. Although the applicant feels that feedback was not given 
during the reporting period, it does not mean that feedback was 
not accomplished, but may have not been formally documented. 
The governing directive states that only members in the rating 
chain can confirm if counseling was provided. While current Air 
Force policy requires performance feedback for personnel, a 
direct correlation between information provided during feedback 
sessions and the assessments on evaluation reports does not 
necessarily exist. The lack of counseling or feedback, by 
itself, is not sufficient to challenge the accuracy or justness 
of a report. The applicant stated that he has supporting 
documents classified as "Secret" which took place during the 
reporting period; however, we are unable to use these documents 
to base a decision due to the classification level. We contend 
the burden of proof is on the applicant to provide evidence that 
can be used in any appeal case. 

 

The applicant stated in a memorandum dated 22 Jul 09, that he 
successfully accomplished the mission as outlined by the senior 
leadership; however, ultimately this led to his unilateral non-
judicial punishment pertaining to disagreements over this 
uniquely subjective, senior officer-provided guidance. The 
applicant further states that he has continued to be plagued, by 
what he considers to be unprofessional practices, by stating 
that upon arriving at his new duty station at the Defense 
Language Institute in Aug 06, he was informed that his previous 
supervisor had pre-notified his new supervisor that a so called 
"incident" had occurred while he served in China, tainting his 
new chain of command; however the applicant does not provide 
evidence from the rating chain or MEO confirming that this 
notification occurred or that it took place during the contested 
reporting period. 

 

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. We contend 
that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to 
the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's 
record. He has not substantiated the contested report was not 
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration or direct 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel with a 1 May 06 
promotion effective date. They base their determination on the 
recommendation by AFPC/DPSID to deny correction or removal of 
the applicant’s 31 Jul 06 report. 

 


In addition, they note that although the 31 Jul 06 OPR should 
have been filed in the applicant's Officer Selection Record 
(OSR) by 29 Sep 06, the rater did not sign the report unti1 
26 Feb 07, additional rater on 12 Apr 07, the reviewer on 
20 Apr 07, and the Air Force Advisor on 20 Apr 07. As such, 
since all of the signature dates of the evaluators' are after 
the P0505A, P0506A, and P0506C CSBs the contested report could 
not have been filed in his OSR for these boards. The P0507B CSB 
that convened on 27 Nov 07 is the first board that considered 
the 31 Jul 06 OPR in the promotion process. 

 

They note that DPSID’s evaluation addresses the correction or 
the removal of the 31 Jul 06 OPR. They state that an evaluation 
report is considered to represent the rating chain's best 
judgment at the time it is rendered. They contend that once a 
report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the 
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's 
record. The burden of proof is on the applicant and the 
applicant has not substantiated the contested report or PRFs are 
inaccurate or unjust. The applicant is requesting back pay 
associated with promotion to lieutenant colonel from 1 May 06. 
Had he been promoted by the CY05A Board, his date of rank and 
effective date would have been 1 Sep 06. Although not directly 
requested, DPSOO does not support direct promotion to lieutenant 
colonel. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant notes that the crux of his case is based on the 
review of the classified documents that were originally 
submitted to the Board and believes without these documents, he 
cannot receive a fair and unbiased review. 

 

The non-event as expressed in the advisory opinion is not 
articulated for the Board nor has the supposed violation of the 
SOP ever been explicitly spelled out; no paraphrasing, no 
chapter, paragraph, or sub-paragraph was referenced by the 
rating chain at any time. He also notes that even after a 
review by SAF/IGS, they found no apparent violation of the law, 
standard or regulation, because he was ordered to conduct 
operations and did so without incident. 

 

DPSOO’s contention that his package is untimely omits the fact 
that the OPR in question did not become a matter of record until 
13 Nov 07—470 days after the closeout date. However, once he 
became aware of the derogatory OPR he immediately started filing 
letters to two promotion boards, management level review board, 
as well as forwarding copies of the classified package to the 
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force. After 


being advised by the SAF/IG to forward his case to the AFBCMR, 
he did so at his first opportunity. 

 

His primary concern stems from the fact that strong evidence to 
the contrary has been provided in the SECRET classified portion 
of his case, but the evidence has been suppressed. DPSID has 
refused to review the classified documents. 

 

Given the unlikelihood of success on the merits (especially 
after suppressing the SECRET classified documents), he believes 
a recommendation to not excuse the delay is extremely harsh and 
unwarranted. Without a complete review of all the documents by 
the AFBMCR, it will appear that the Air Force’s sole intent is 
to sweep this poorly orchestrated matter under the rug and 
unfairly place the full burden on the member. 

 

In short, the applicant continues to explain the circumstances 
which subsequently led to the referral report (contested report) 
and does not believe a fair and unbiased review can be conducted 
without the classified documents. He does not believe the Air 
Force is in any way interested in reviewing this case in an 
objectively just manner and he appreciates the opportunity to 
bring these comments before the Board. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 available evidence of record and the 
documents provided in his behalf, including his response to the 
Air Force evaluations, 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. We note the 
applicant submitted additional evidence that, because of the 
security classification, was not made available for the Board’s 
review. While the AFBMCR does have procedures to receive and 
review classified documents, it is the applicant’s 
responsibility to insure that any classified documentation is 
submitted in compliance with applicable security directives. 
Since the applicant requested consideration of his case continue 
without the classified material, we have made our determination 
based on the evidence before us. However, should the applicant 


submit the documentation he references is essential to the 
review of his case in the proper manner, we would be inclined to 
reconsider his appeal. Accordingly, 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-2010-04199 in Executive Session on 13 October 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 31 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 22 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair