RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01081 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 
1 Jan 10 through 19 Nov 10, be declared void and removed from his 
official records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His supervisor unfairly and inaccurately represented his work, 
professional qualities, etc. in the OPR in question in reprisal 
for filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint. The OPR is 
inconsistent with the verbiage in his Development Plan, his Field 
Grade Officer of the Quarter submission, and prior OPRs, and 
constitutes an illegal reprisal. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of an 
expanded statement, a letter from his Wing IG concerning his 
reprisal complaint, his rebuttal letter to the Wing IG, an 
excerpt from a Development Plan, an award nomination, and the OPR 
in question. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 21 Jul 10, the applicant informed his supervisor of his desire 
to go to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) to discuss concerns 
of mistreatment by the supervisor because of the applicant’s 
religious denominational background. The applicant further 
alleged that his supervisor responded by saying that he was going 
to remove him from his Senior Protestant Chaplain position and 
all supervisory responsibilities because he was not impressed 
with his supervisory abilities or his service as Senior 
Protestant Chaplain, and make sure he received a bad OPR. The 
applicant then discussed his concerns with the MEO office, and 
filed a complaint with his Wing IG against the supervisor 
alleging reprisal. 

 

On 15 Sep 10, the applicant requested withdrawal of his IG 
complaint. 


 

On or about 4 Nov 10, his supervisor notified him he was no 
longer the supervisor of his one subordinate captain. 

 

On 20 Dec 10, he received the contested OPR and, on 22 Dec 10, he 
asked to reverse his 15 Sep 10 request to withdraw his IG 
complaint because he was displeased with the OPR he received. 

 

On 13 Jan 11, he filed a new reprisal complaint with the IG 
against his supervisor, based upon his OPR and his removal as a 
supervisor. 

 

On 1 Mar 11, the Wing IG informed him that his reprisal case was 
being forwarded to HQ AETC/IG. The Wing IG report concluded 
“This case should be dismissed because there is no evidence of 
wrongdoing.” 

 

In an undated letter, the HQ AETC/IG notified the applicant that 
they had conducted a reprisal complaint analysis and found no 
evidence of military reprisal. 

 

On 16 Aug 11, the Department of Defense (DoD) IG notified the Air 
Force IG (SAF/IGQ) they had reviewed the Air Force Report of 
Investigation into the allegations of reprisal submitted by the 
applicant, and agreed the responsible management official did not 
reprise against him for making a protected communication. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error of injustice. The applicant provides the outcome of his 
investigation, which did not support a finding of religious 
discrimination or any violation of Air Force Equal Opportunity 
(EO) policy. The applicant also filed a separate IG complaint 
alleging reprisal by the rater for protected communications he 
made to the aforementioned EO office. The IG investigation found 
there was no evidence of military reprisal against the applicant 
on the part of the rater. There were no negative comments by the 
rating chain on the contested OPR referencing any poor 
performance by the applicant and the report was not a referral 
OPR. The applicant has not proven any error or injustice in the 
form of rater reprisal in the preparation or execution of this 
report. The report was accomplished in direct accordance with 
applicable regulations. The applicant has not provided 
compelling evidence to show the report is unjust or inaccurate as 
written. Based on a lack of any evidence provided by the 
applicant of either religious discrimination or military reprisal 


by the rater, there is no evidence the rater wrote a biased or 
unfair report based on those factors. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
20 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (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 an error or an injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt it’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 

 

4. The applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal and 
has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (10 USC 1034). We note the Inspector General 
investigated these allegations and concluded the applicant was 
not the victim of reprisal. Based upon our own independent 
review, we have determined the applicant has not established the 
contested OPR was rendered in retaliation for a protected 
communication. In reaching this determination, we note he has 
submitted no direct evidence of this reprisal motive, and we 
believe the contested OPR represents an accurate assessment of 
the applicant’s performance and potential during the matter under 
review. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis exists upon which to recommend granting the relief sought 
in this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-01081 in Executive Session on 26 Jun 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

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

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair