RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2011-02471 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 
1 June 2009 through 29 July 2010, be voided and removed from his 
record 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was issued the contested referral performance report that 
referenced an action that did not exist at the time the reporting 
period closed. He was offered non-judicial punishment on 30 July 
2010 and the final action was not official until 24 August 2010. 
The referral report was unjust as the Article 15 action did not 
exist during the rating period. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
current commander’s letter of support, the contested OPR, and the 
Article 15 action. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the Regular 
Air Force in the grade of first lieutenant (O-2). 

 

He received a referral OPR for the period 1 June 2009 through 
29 July 2010. In Section IV of the OPR, the applicant’s rater 
indicated that “Fraternization/drunk & disorderly conduct led to 
Art 15...” 

 

On 30 July 2010, the applicant was offered non-judicial 
punishment for being drunk and disorderly on or about 28 May 
2010, in a public place; and, on divers occasions, between on or 
about 1 December 2008 and on or about 6 May 2010, knowingly 
fraternized with a senior airman on terms of military equality by 
repeatedly socializing via telephone, text messaging and social 
networking websites, seeking relationship advice from the airman, 
engaging in sexual intercourse with the airman, allowing the 


airman to spend the night multiple times at his quarters, 
sleeping in the same bed with the airman and kissing the airman, 
in violation of the custom of the United States Air Force that 
officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms of 
military equality. On 4 August 2010, after consulting with 
counsel, the applicant waived his right to a court-martial, 
accepted non-judicial punishment, provided a written 
presentation, and requested a personal appearance. After 
considering the presented evidence, the applicant’s commander 
determined the applicant had committed the alleged offenses. As 
a result, the applicant received punishment consisting of a 
reprimand. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did 
file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board 
(ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the report was unjust 
or inaccurate as written and denied his request. The applicant 
provided a letter of support from his commander; however, the 
commander was not one of the evaluators on the contested report; 
therefore, this additional documentation is not relevant nor 
germane to the applicant’s appeal. 

 

DPSID indicates the basis of the applicant’s Article 15 action 
was that he made a false official statement on 6 May 2010 to a 
senior officer who was investigating an allegation of 
fraternization on the applicant’s part. This false official 
statement did in fact occur within the contested rating period. 
As a result of this misconduct, the applicant received a referral 
OPR. He contends the comment in Section IV, line 6, of the 
referral report, which states, “Fraternization/drunk disorderly 
led to Art 15…” is unjust because the action did not exist at the 
time the reporting period closed. This comment does not state 
that he received an Article 15, but rather that his misconduct, 
namely fraternization and drunk & disorderly conduct, led to an 
Article 15. The rating chain chose to document this incident in 
accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2406, paragraph 3.7.5, 
which states 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. This incident, although originating within the 
reporting period, was still pending resolution as of the close-
out date of the report. The rating chain elected to seek an 
extension in an effort to have the Article 15 action finalized 
within the requested extension period. The extension of the 
close-out was approved; however, the outcome had still not been 
finalized by the final day of the extension period. However, the 
rater felt the incident that occurred during the original rating 


period was of such significance that it warranted documentation 
in the applicant’s OPR. 

 

It is DPSID’s opinion that the applicant has not provided 
compelling evidence to show that the report is unjust or 
inaccurate. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

As a matter of information only, the applicant provides a copy of 
an early removal action of his Article 15 from his Officer 
Selection Record. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 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 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of 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 issues 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-2011-02471 in Executive Session on 6 March 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 
  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2011-02471: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair