RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01432

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Air Force Commendation Medal with Three Oak Leaf 
Clusters (AFCM w/3OLCs) be placed in his officer selection 
record (OSR).  (Administratively Corrected)

2.  His officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period 
4 May 99 through 3 May 00 be removed.

3.  If the Board declines removing the report rendered for the 
period 4 May 99 through 3 May 00 from his record, he requests 
alternative relief that would allow him to write a letter to the 
Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection 
Board (CSB) explaining the reasons for the near duplicate of the 
OPR rendered for the period 4 May 00 through 21 Nov 00.  (His 
request was administratively granted). 

4.  His corrected OSR be considered by a Special Selection Board 
(SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY05A CSB.  
(Administratively Corrected).

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not promoted by the CY05A CSB to lieutenant colonel 
because of the missing AFCM w/3OLCS from his record.  When he 
transferred from active duty to the Air Force Reserve, he was 
not aware that he had received the award.

His report for the period 4 May 99 through 3 May 00 has similar 
accomplishments and in some cases, nearly identical wording as 
his report closing 21 Nov 00.  When his next report was due the 
3 May 00 report was not a part of his record, so when he 
reviewed his record prior to the IPZ board, he was not aware of 
the report; had he found this error, he would have corrected it 
prior to his promotion board.  Had Air Force officials been 
aware of its existence they would not have directed a report to 
be accomplished.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; copies of his officer data verification brief (DVB); 
the AFCM w/3OLCs decoration elements; performance reports, 
including the contested reports, and other supporting documents.  
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, while serving as a major, was released from 
active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. 

He was considered and nonselected by the CY05A, CY06A, CY06C, 
CY07B, CY08B, CY09B, CYI0A, and the CY11A Lieutenant Colonel 
CSBs.

After receiving the applicant’s application for evaluation, 
AFPC/DPSOO administratively corrected the applicant’s record and 
approved his request for consideration by SSB with inclusion of 
the AFCM w/3OLCs by the CY05A Lieutenant CSB Officer Selection 
Record and inclusion of a letter to the same board addressing 
his two near identical Officer Performance Reports.

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 (Exhibits C,D)..  

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of his request to remove the OPR, 
stating, in part, that there is no evidence that the contested 
report is inaccurate or unjust.

The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, it 
was not for an evaluation appeal and was returned without 
action.

They note, the applicant contends he has two nearly identical 
OPR's in his record and that the 3 May 00 OPR was not in his 
records when he was told by his supervisors that they needed 
information for his next OPR; however, the 3 May 00 OPR became a 
matter of record on 29 Jun 00, five months before the 21 Nov 00 
OPR closed out.  The applicant had the opportunity to review his 
record to make sure a report was not in there before the 
21 Nov 00 report closed out.  In addition, he was the one to 
provide the bullets to his rater and does not provide any 
statements from the rating chain affirming that the contested 
report was written in error or unjust.  Air Force policy is that 
an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a 
matter of record.  It appears that the 3 May 00 report was 
written correctly and the burden of proof is on the applicant to 
prove otherwise.  

The applicant provided two copies of the 21 Nov 00 OPR and 
states on the 4 May 00 OPR; the year 00 has been altered.  
However, this was a minor correction made by the Military 
Personnel Section (MPS). It is normal procedure for the MPS 
evaluation section to administratively correct a report when an 
error is discovered versus sending the report back to the unit 
for correction.  In the applicant's case, it appears that the 
MPS discovered the error with the dates not flowing and made the 
correction to the applicants report accordingly.  

In addition, the applicant provided a memorandum attesting to 
his professional flying and personal skills; however, he does 
not provide a statement from anyone in the rating chain or any 
other pertinent credible officials. While other individuals are 
entitled to their opinions of the applicant's duty performance 
and the events occurring around the time the OPR was rendered, 
they do not believe they were in a better position to evaluate 
his duty performance than those who were specifically assigned 
that responsibility.  Therefore, their opinions are not germane 
to his appeal. 

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2401, 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.  However, statements from the evaluators 
during the contested period are conspicuously absent.  Without 
the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude the OPR 
is accurate as written.  Additionally, the applicant stated he 
is convinced his rater's actions toward him and statements made 
to him prior to separating from active duty, indicate that his 
rater's personal feelings toward his separation led his rater to 
write inaccurate and unflattering statements about his 
performance on the OPR.  However, the applicant has not provided 
proof of the allegations.  In addition, the instruction states 
to not make statements you cannot support with evidence.  Your 
personal opinions will not convince the Board to approve your 
application.  Unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives of 
your evaluators or how or why your report turned out as it did, 
do not contribute to your case.  You must provide factual, 
specific, and substantiated information that is from credible 
officials and based on firsthand observation or knowledge.  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/support from the rating chain on the 
contested OPR.  Information from evaluators, official 
substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General 
(IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate; however, it 
is not provided in this case.  It appears the report was 
accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.  

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating 
chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.  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 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 for promotion 
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY05A CSB.  They base 
their determination on the recommendation by AFPC/DPSID to deny 
correction or removal of the applicant’s 3 May 00 report.  

In addition, they note that the applicant contends his 
supervisors at the Wing Weapons Flight told him that since he 
was separating they would not be accomplishing an OPR for him. 
He states the 3 May 00 OPR rendered while on extended active 
duty (EAD) was not in his record when he was asked by the 
gaining unit to provide data for his next OPR.  He provided his 
primary rater the data, including his accomplishments from his 
previous unit, so those accomplishments could be used on his OPR 
closing 21 Nov 00 (rendered while on non-EAD).  He believes the 
near identical OPRs in his OSR reflected an unfavorable 
connotation when his record met the CY05A CSB.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant claims his Deputy Operations Group Commander was 
in his chain of command and contends that the close-out date on 
the 21 Nov 00 was changed because the 3 May 00 report from his 
previous assignment was not in his records at the time the 
report was accomplished.  He notes the reports he presented as 
evidence to support his case, has official markings as having 
been entered in his official records and asserts that when the 
report showed up at the Air Force Personnel Center, they saw the 
dates overlapped and changed the dates of the report.  

He points out that had he known of the report from the OSS, he 
would have done something immediately to fix it.  None of his 
supervisors ever advised him that he had a duplicate/negative 
report in his records.  He became aware of the report while 
accomplishing his pre-retirement records review.  In addition, 
he notes with the new electronic system it is very difficult to 
see the order of the reports so it is easy to miss a report if 
you don’t know which report you are looking for.

The applicant’s complete response 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 complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) 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 submits additional evidence to support his 
belief that the contested report was not in his record; however, 
the OPR notes that the contested report which closed-out on 
3 May 00 was filed in his record as of 29 Jun 00.  In addition, 
we note the applicant has been granted SSB consideration based 
on the missing AFCM, w/3OLCs, with a letter of explanation to 
the promotion board president.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we do not find relief beyond that 
already granted administratively is warranted.

________________________________________________________________

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-2011-01432 in Executive Session on 7 February 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 11, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 Jun 11.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 Jul 11.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 11.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Nov 11.