RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00698 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a closeout date of 
13 Oct 02 be removed from his records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a seven-page brief, the applicant’s counsel makes the 
following key contentions: 

 

The OPR contains comments that are in violation of AFI 36-2406, 
specifically, paragraphs 3.9.1.1, 3.9.1.2 and 3.9.1.2.1. The OPR 
indicates his performance as a T-38 Instructor Pilot (T-38 IP) 
met standards, yet the report contains derogatory comments 
clearly designed to imply unsatisfactory performance in his 
described duties as a T-38 IP, while marking “Meets Standards,” 
and not referring the OPR to the ratee. The OPR also contains 
non-specific/vague comments in violation of the AFI. 

 

Evidence has substantiated a pattern of documenting 
unsubstantiated negative information in the applicant’s record; 
and, the pattern was recognized in prior cases submitted to this 
board, specifically BCMR cases BC-2005-00766 and BC-2006-03559. 
In addition, corrective actions have been made by AFPC/JA that 
confirmed a pattern of documenting erroneous derogatory 
information. In particular, the previous cases revealed an 
effort to conceal and misrepresent his performance by destructing 
cockpit video tape of one of his check rides; there were multiple 
instances of retroactive tampering with his flying training 
records, and unwarranted interference with his flying continuity 
in an apparently deliberate, but unsuccessful effort to degrade 
his flying performance. Thus far, corrective actions have 
included removing an OPR for cause from his records, deleting a 
reprisal duty title for cause, removal of his AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, and re-accomplishing a 
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF). 

 

Due to the delays in the records corrections process, his appeal 
from the fall of 2004 was not finalized until the summer of 2006. 
The derogatory comments in question are still a matter of record 
and can distort the picture of the applicant’s record of 


performance for his supervisory chain within the Air Force, or 
any other potential future employer outside the Air Force. 

 

In summary, it is clear there was an on-going effort to 
misrepresent his duty performance as substandard. He did not 
have an opportunity to rebut the slanderous remarks. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his 
counsel’s personal statement, a copy of his 2001 OPR and a copy 
of the contested OPR, excerpts from previous BCMR appeals, e-mail 
communications, excerpts from his flying records, and copies of 
character letters. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of captain (0-3). 

 

On 4 May 06, under BC-2005-00766, the BCMR corrected the 
applicant’s records to show that: 

 

 a. The Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), AF Form 
707B, rendered for the period 14 Oct 02 through 13 Oct 03 was 
removed from his records. 

 

 b. His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration 
by the Calendar Year 2003 Major Central Selection Board (CSB) was 
amended in the “Aeronautical Flying Data” section to reflect his 
flying status as “ACT OPER FLYING.” 

 

On 4 Apr 08, under BC-2006-03599, the BCMR corrected the 
applicant’s records to show that his AF Form 8 was declared void 
and removed from his records. 

 

On 24 Mar 10, under BC-2008-03623, the BCMR corrected the 
applicant’s records to show that he was considered for Special 
Selection Board (SSB) for the CY03B, CY04A, CY05B, CY06B, CY07A, 
and CY08C CSBs Major Central Selection Boards. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states that although the 
applicant may feel the comments are derogatory in nature, they do 
not imply his performance was below minimum standards. DPSID 
acknowledges that while the comments are not the strongest it 
seems they convey exactly what the evaluator intended. The 
applicant states that if you compare his OPR with a closeout date 
of 13 Oct 01, it is clear that the second OPR was written with 


the intent to imply regression. However, the governing 
regulation states that ratings are not erroneous or unjust 
because they are inconsistent with other ratings one may have 
received. If an individual stays in the same job and has a 
change of supervisors there can be a change in performance 
standards, which, depending on how well the individual adapts, 
could cause a marked change in the next report. 

 

DPSID states the applicant contends that the standard 
recommendation for Professional Military Education (PME) is 
absent from his 2002 OPR; however, PME push comments are optional 
and it is up to the evaluators to decide whether or not to give 
the rate a PME push. Furthermore, the regulation states that 
evaluators “may” also make recommendations for the appropriate 
level in-residence PME in OPRs; therefore, enforcing that PME 
comments are not obligatory. 

 

DPSID notes the applicant provides three letters of support; 
however, they do not believe those individuals were in a better 
position to evaluate the applicant’s duty performance than those 
who were specifically assigned that responsibility. 

 

DPSID states that although the applicant asserts he discussed 
complaints with Inspector General (IG) and Military Equal 
Opportunity (MEO), he has not provided any documentation of 
support from their office covering the reporting period to 
substantiate any reprisal claims. In addition, he has not 
provided any documentation from his rating chain regarding the 
contested OPR to provide clarification or an explanation of his 
assertions. DPSID notes that an evaluation report is considered 
to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered. 

 

The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel responded asking the Board to recognize 
the reality that some raters who intend to kill a subordinate’s 
career know how to use word pictures that do not violate the 
letter of the regulation, but violate the spirit of the 
regulation. The applicant’s original contentions are reiterated; 
however, he provides detailed information on why he believes the 
OPR should be removed from his records. 

 

In this case, the rater’s history demonstrates an animus and 
intent to accomplish a result that is consistent with the use of 
explicit derogatory language, but avoids the referral process. 
While the advisory correctly states that ratings are not 
erroneous or unjust because they are inconsistent with the other 
ratings one has received, or that simply because the ratee does 
not like the ratings, ratings that nonetheless deliberately 


circumvent governing AFIs in order to deny the ratee due process 
and the required opportunity in AFIs to rebut derogatory ratings, 
should not be allowed to stand. 

 

The AFPC/DPSID advisory opinion fails to appreciate that the 
applicant’s OPR is the work product of a rater who knew how to 
game the OPR system in a way that would adversely affect the 
applicant’s promotion opportunities, without giving him the 
formal opportunity to challenge the OPR in question. 

 

His counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 warranting the 
removal of the contested OPR from his records. The applicant’s 
counsel goes to great length to demonstrate why the contested OPR 
is in violation of AFI 36-2406. However, this is part of the 
problem we have with the relief requested by the applicant. While 
the overall quality of the OPR may be an arguable point, 
applicant’s counsel did not point out any deficiency in the report 
that we believe is a clear violation of the Air Force Instruction. 
In fact, it appears that counsel is asking the Board to read 
beyond the actual content of the report and find that it should be 
removed based on the previous relief granted to the applicant by 
the Board. Even considering the applicant’s previous case, we do 
not find that the Board’s previous action validates this request 
for additional relief. Therefore we agree with the recommendation 
of AFPC/DPSID and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for 
our decision the applicant has not been the victim of error or 
injustice. Therefore, 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'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 involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

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 AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-00698 in Executive Session on 20 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Feb 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 15 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair