RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04654 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a closeout date of 
28 May 01 be removed from his records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His OPR should be removed from his records because he was not 
fully qualified as a chaplain nor did he attend the Basic 
Chaplain Course (BCC). The report violated the Air Force 
Chaplain Professional Development guidance and Military Equal 
Opportunity and Treatment. His chain of command did not adhere 
to the Air Force Instructions when they prepared his evaluation. 
His Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is 52R1, which translates to 
a chaplain in training. He received a referral OPR after only 
serving on active duty for 85 days. 

 

He was marked as “does not meet standards” in communications 
skills. Given his birth, English is his second language. AFI 
36-2706 declares, “it is unlawful to discriminate against an 
individual or group because of their race, color, national 
origin, religion, or sex. This includes discrimination based on 
the individual’s birthplace, ancestry, culture or the linguistic 
characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.” The 
linguistic characteristics of the majority of Korean born 
Americans, includes the same Korean accent that he possesses when 
he speaks English. Although he may have an accent, he graduated 
with two degrees from United States accredited programs. 

 

He was led to believe the referral report would eventually be 
removed from his records. He was naïve to believe his rater and 
additional rater when they told him he could overcome the poor 
rating. He believes it clearly shows discrimination and career 
damaging implications; therefore, he asks for consideration of 
this unjust treatment to be removed from his records. 

 

On 7 Jan 11, he sent a personal statement with letters of support 
from his chain of command. 

 


In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from 
the governing AFI, a copy of his referral OPR, a copy of the 
referral OPR letter, and copies of letters of support. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant requested administrative closure of his case on 
6 Jul 11 in order to gather further documentation in support of 
his request. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/EO forwards without recommendation. EO states that after a 
review of the EO IT system, there was no record of the applicant 
contacting the local EO office to discuss and/or file a complaint 
of discrimination. 

 

The EO complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant’s OPR 
reflects in Block 6, 85 days of supervision; however, they 
verified he had 150 days since he entered on active duty (EAD). 
DPSID notes that although 120 days is required to write a report, 
as little as 60 days is needed when writing a referral report in 
accordance with the governing regulations. The applicant 
mentions that his referral report violated Military Equal 
Opportunity (MEO) and Treatment Policy. However, he does not 
provide a copy of an MEO or Inspector General (IG) complaint that 
justifies the violations took place nor has it been confirmed or 
reviewed by credible officials that the comments were in 
violation of MEO policy; which states that it is unlawful to 
discriminate against an individual because of their race, color, 
national origin, religion, or sex. 

 

The applicant provides letters of support from his rater and 
additional rater; however, he has not provided a statement from 
the reviewer. In addition, the additional rater had concerns 
about being able to understand the applicant at the time the 
report was written as he admits in his letter of support. The 
governing regulation states that you must provide convincing 
documentation for your appeal. The willingness of evaluators to 
change a report is not enough. You must offer clear evidence 
that the original evaluation was unjust or wrong. The applicant 


has not provided documentation to substantiate the contested 
report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on 
knowledge available at the time. 

 

The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 1 Sep 11, the applicant requested to reopen his case and 
provided additional documentation for consideration. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E and G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After reviewing 
the available evidence of record, we believe that substantial 
doubt has been established as to the fairness of the contested 
report and whether or not the report is an honest and accurate 
depiction of the applicant’s overall performance during the time 
period in question. Additionally, we note the strong support 
from the applicant’s chain of command recommending that the 
report be removed. As such, we believe any doubt regarding the 
fairness and accuracy of the report should be resolved in favor 
of the applicant. Therefore, in the interest of equity and 
justice, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated 
below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Company Grade 
Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 
30 December 2000 through 28 May 2001 be declared void and removed 
from his records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04654 in Executive Session on 12 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/EO, dated 7 Feb 11. 

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

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

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

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair