RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02660 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The AF IMT 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), 
rendered for the period 18 Feb 2007 through 13 Mar 2008, be 
removed from his records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a 10-page brief of counsel, the applicant makes the following 
contentions: 

 

 a. The applicant’s rating chain was not properly established 
in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems, and MPFM 07-15, Part VII, Career Enhancement 
Procedures, and as a result he was rated by the wrong rating 
chain. 

 

 b. The applicant’s rater inappropriately considered duty 
history and performance after the current reporting period and 
used unreliable information. It was an error for his rater to 
arbitrarily extend the report out to 13 Mar 2008 without 
authority; and that error was compounded by his rater’s 
reference to the derogatory event of his relief from command on 
13 Mar 2008. 

 

 c. The applicant’s rater was unfavorably biased by 
arbitrarily extending the close-out date of the contested OPR 
without any authorization to do so by the office of primary 
responsibility for approving such extensions, i.e., the Air 
Force Colonel's Group (AF/DPO). The rater further violated AFI 
36-2406 by including the comments that falsely implied an 
investigation had been concluded during the rating period. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 30 Jun 2012, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the 
grade of colonel. 

 

The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance 
profile: 

 

Period Ending Performance Factor 

 

 12 Jul 2010 - 11 Jul 2011 Meets Standards 

 14 Mar 2010 - 11 Jul 2010 Meets Standards 

 14 Mar 2009 – 13 Mar 2010 Meets Standards 

 14 Mar 2008 – 13 Mar 2009 Meets Standards 

* 18 Feb 2007 - 13 Mar 2008 Does Not Meet Standards 

 8 Mar 2006 – 17 Feb 2006 Meets Standards 

 8 Mar 2005 – 7 Mar 2006 Meets Standards 

 

*Contested Report 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that based on a lack 
of corroborating evidence and the administrative sufficiency 
pertaining to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) findings, 
they recommend that the evaluation not be voided from the his 
permanent record. The applicant has not provided compelling 
evidence to show the report is inaccurate as written. 

 

The applicant initially filed an appeal on 3 Dec 2011 through 
the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Reports. The provision states that an applicant is afforded a 
period of three years from the close-out of the report to submit 
an appeal for consideration. In the applicant’s case, he filed 
his initial appeal outside of the prescribed three-year period. 
The ERAB considered the applicant's appeal and was not convinced 
that the report was unjust or inaccurate and denied the 
applicants request for relief. 

 

Regarding the applicant’s contention that his rating chain was 
not properly established and as a result he was rated by the 
wrong rating chain, DPSID states that in accordance with MPFM 
07-15, "When determining deployed rating chain, the rater should 
typically be the person who directly supervises the individual's 
day to day activities. The unit that owns the Unit Line Number 
(ULN) (and will typically have Tactical Control [TACON]) will 
determine the rating chain. In joint environments, an Air Force 


unit will be designated to have Administrative Control (ADCON) 
responsibilities." In the applicant’s case, he was in a dual-
hatted role which made the rating chain not as clean as with 
most joint ULNs. Although the ADCON unit typically does not 
write evaluations, the TACON unit does have the authority to 
delegate to the ADCON unit. In the applicant's situation, 
Brigadier General (BG) G--- who represented the TACON 
organization relinquished control to the ADCON organization, 
represented by Col H--- to perform supervisory duties and 
accomplish the evaluation. The ADCON organization provided the 
day-to-day oversight of the officer which, in effect, met the 
standard of AFI 36-2406 when determining the rater. The 
applicant's predecessor, in the same position, was also 
evaluated by the same ADCON chain; therefore, any claim that the 
ADCON chain completing the applicant’s report for punitive 
reasons is without merit. 

 

Regarding the applicant's second allegation that his rater 
inappropriately considered duty history and performance after 
the current reporting period and unreliable information, he 
specifically references AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.7.5., which 
states that "if an incident or event occurs between the time an 
annual report closes and the time it becomes a matter of record 
that is of such serious significance that inclusion in that 
report is warranted, an extension of the close-out date must be 
requested." The applicant contends that his rater, Col H--- did 
not seek authorization from AF/DPO to extend the close-out date 
of the report, but rather did so arbitrarily in order to justify 
a comment on the OPR, specifically of his being relieved of 
command for multiple reasons. He provides as evidence a signed 
memorandum from the HAF/IMIO Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
office which responded to his inquiry to determine if AF/DPO had 
previously authorized an extension to the close-out of the 
report. The results of the inquiry revealed that no records 
were found to validate an extension from AF/DPO was granted. 
However, the applicant has failed to provide any corroboration 
from any rating officials who signed the contested report, who 
might have provided further information as to whether or not 
such a request was ever submitted. In the absence of any 
definitive confirmation from these official sources that such a 
request was never submitted and approved, DPSID presumes that 
the close-out date was appropriately extended in accordance with 
AFI 36-2406. 

 

The applicant further makes a case along the lines that the 
dates of two negative actions that were reported on the 
contested OPR occurred outside a normal annual reporting period, 
and that one comment, specifically referencing an investigation, 
was even made outside of the extension period already reflected 
on the contested OPR. Concerning the first negative comment 
that he was relieved of command for multiple reasons, the 
applicant has not (as previously mentioned) proved that the 
extended period of the report is invalid, therefore this would 
not make the comment itself inappropriate to be placed on the 


OPR based on the timing of the action compared to the close-out 
of the report. In referencing the second negative comment that 
an investigation revealed mistreatment of subordinates, 
attempting to manipulate a Unit Climate Assessment (UCA) and 
disrespect of superiors, the applicant is making the assumption 
that this comment is directly referring to the Commander-
Directed Investigation dated 31 Mar 2008. The applicant has 
provided no proof that this comment is referencing this specific 
investigation. Without substantiation from any of the authors 
of this contested evaluation, such a distinction is impossible 
to make. Therefore, without clarification from any member of 
the rating chain to confirm the applicant’s allegation, DPSID 
contends that this comment was valid and in accordance with all 
relevant established Air Force policies and procedures. 

 

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is 
considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the 
time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, 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/support from 
either the rater or additional rater on the contested 
evaluation. It is determined that the report was accomplished 
in direct accordance with applicable regulations. DPSID 
contends 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. 
He has not substantiated that the contested OPR was not rendered 
in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at 
the time. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel states there is no evidence regarding 
DPSID’s claim that the TACON commander relinquished control to 
the ADCON commander to perform supervisory duties over the 
applicant. The applicant and his rater were not co-located and 
the applicant was not performing administrative duties under an 
administrative chain of command, but was leading an operational 
unit in a combat theater. 

 

DPSID’s contention that the applicant’s predecessor in command 
was rated by the ADCON chain and that therefore his claim is 
without merit is also contradicted by the email at attachment 
1 of counsel’s response. In this 26 Oct 2007 email, the 
applicant and his predecessor discuss the appropriate rating 
chain for the command position they both held. Made clear is 
the fact that MPFM 07-15, dated 20 Feb 2007, came into effect 
during his predecessor’s tenure. When the applicant asked his 


predecessor why the ADCON chain rendered his OPR, his 
predecessor stated that, when they received MPFM 07-15 in Mar 
2007, there were no changes made for his team because new 
supervisors would not have the minimum 120 days of supervision. 
His predecessor then acknowledged that MPFM 07-15 "was too late 
to impact his team, but ... it would be a big player for your 
team." This email establishes that even the applicant’s 
predecessor in command, as far back as 26 Oct 2007, understood 
the requirement of MPFM 07-15 that the applicant must be rated 
by the TACON chain of command. 

 

Regarding the fact that the rater inappropriately considered the 
applicant’s duty history and performance after the current 
reporting period, DPSID states that notwithstanding the fact 
that a FOIA response revealed no records of a request for an 
extension of the closeout date on his OPR, they postulate the 
close-out date was appropriately extended. DPSID insinuates the 
applicant bears a burden of obtaining from his rater definitive 
confirmation as to whether or not such a request was submitted 
and approved. According to AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for 
Correction Of Military Records, paragraph 4.1., an applicant has 
the burden of providing sufficient evidence of probable material 
error or injustice. This sufficient evidence standard is 
whatever the Board deems reliable and appropriate and does not 
equate to definitive confirmation. When it comes to 
presumptions of regularity of governmental functions, counsel 
believes that it should be presumed that if a request for an 
extension of the close-out date was submitted and approved, it 
would be on file and available both to the applicant (through 
his FOIA request) and the Board under the authority of AFI 36-
2603. 

 

DPSID’s contends that it was not inappropriate for his rater to 
refer to the applicant’s relief from command in the contested 
OPR because he was relieved during the rating period (in fact on 
the last day of the rating period). This argument assumes, of 
course, that a request for an extension of the closeout date was 
submitted and approved when it was not. It was inappropriate to 
imply that his relief from command was supported by an 
appropriate investigation. In the context of this case, any 
reasonable view of the evidence leads to the inescapable 
conclusion that his rater was referring to the Command Directed 
Investigation, an investigation that was only initiated the day 
after the improperly extended rating period closed out. AFI 36-
2406, paragraph 3.7.7, provides that raters must ensure that 
information relied upon to document performance, especially 
derogatory information relating to unsatisfactory behavior or 
misconduct is reliable and supported by substantial evidence. 

 

DPSID contends that the applicant has failed to provide any 
information or support from his former rater and that it is 
necessary to hear from the rating chain to "effectively" 
challenge an evaluation, and that this report was accomplished 
in direct accordance with applicable regulations. Counsel 


believes that he has demonstrated that the OPR in question was 
not accomplished in direct accordance with applicable 
regulations on multiple levels. 

 

Counsel’s complete response, with attachment, 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. After 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded 
that the contested report should be declared void and removed 
from his records. While Counsel's contentions are duly noted, 
we do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive in this matter. We are also not 
persuaded by the evidence provided that the applicant’s rating 
chain was not properly established, that the comments contained 
in the report are in error, or that the report was prepared in a 
manner contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. 
Although Counsel argues the close-out date of the report was 
extended without the proper authority and provides a copy of a 
FOIA request, he has not provided substantial evidence which 
would establish to our satisfaction that his report was 
improperly extended. In the absence of such evidence and given 
the presumption of regularity in the operation of governmental 
affairs, we must assume the close-out date was appropriately 
extended in accordance with AFI 36-2406. In view of above, we 
conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he 
has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 this application 
in Executive Session on 28 Mar 2013, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-02660: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Jun 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Aug 2012. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Aug 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Rebuttal, Counsel, dated 16 Sep 2012, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair