ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04023 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be reinstated to duty as commander of his former Air Force 
Reserve Squadron without prejudice or a documented break-in-
service. He also requests the following: 

 

 a. Any records pertaining to his transfer to an “overage 
status” be deleted from all Air Force systems of records. 

 

 b. He be granted a transfer at his request to another 
suitable position within the Air Force Reserve. 

 

 c. He be given a proper transfer of command, including a 
change-of-command ceremony. 

 

 d. He receive a suitable “end-of-tour” award for 
meritorious service for presentation at the time of his transfer, 
commensurate with his rank, and appropriate for his more than 
three years of successful performance as a squadron commander. 

 

2. He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel (Lt Col) USAFR for the 13-17 June 2011 Line of the Air 
Force Reserve Lieutenant Colonel mandatory promotion board 
(VO511B) and, if selected, his promotion be backdated, 
accordingly. As part of this request, he requests the following: 

 

 a. The AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), 
prepared for the VO511B board be removed from his record and, if 
a new PRF is required, be accomplished by his previous senior 
rater. 

 

 b. His PRF reflect “C21R3” as his duty Air Force Specialty 
Code (DAFSC) and “Commander” as his duty title. 

 

 c. His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), 
rendered for the period 30 October 2009 through 29 October 2010, 
be modified in block IV, line 6 and block V, line 5, as necessary 
to change or mask the intentionally-weakened “push lines.” 

 

 d. His Fitness Assessment (FA) score, dated 6 March 2011, 
be invalidated and deleted from the Air Force Fitness Management 


System (AFFMS) and any other applicable Air Force system of 
records it may be filed. 

 e. An AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, and AF 
Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification 
Status, be created for the period of 6 March-5 June 2011 to 
document his medical status and injury during this period. 

 

2. He receive protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESUME OF CASE: 

 

On 10 Apr 12, the Board determined the applicant had not 
presented sufficient evidence to conclude he had been the victim 
of an error or injustice (10 USC 1552) or reprisal (10 USC 1034). 
The applicant argued that his command’s action to relieve him of 
his command, rendered him a faulty promotion recommendation form 
(PRF) and deprived him the opportunity for timely review, and 
refusal to invalidate his fitness assessment (FA) in the 
aftermath of an injury constituted a pattern of retaliation; 
however, the Board did not find these arguments or the 
documentation presented sufficient to recommend corrective 
action. However, in light of his serious allegations and his 
request for protection as a Whistleblower, the Board determined 
it prudent to request the IG conduct an investigation into his 
allegations in accordance with the provisions of DoD Directive 
7050.06, Military Whistleblower Protection, and AFI 36-2603, Air 
Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Accordingly, the 
Board determined that a final decision in his case not be made 
until such time as an investigation could be completed and a 
report of the results of the investigation were provided for 
review. Accordingly, the applicant's case was administratively 
closed, without prejudice, and referred to SAF/IG for 
investigation. For a complete accounting of the facts and 
circumstances of the original case, see the Record of Proceedings 
at Exhibit G. 

 

On 20 Jun 12, the applicant was notified of the Board’s decision, 
accordingly. 

 

On 29 Aug 12, DoD-IG approved the SAF/IG request to dismiss the 
applicant’s reprisal complaint as their investigation revealed 
the applicant did not believe that he was reprised against for a 
protected communication; the responsible management official 
indicated that he had no knowledge of the applicant’s protected 
communication; and the applicant’s complaint to the AFBCMR did 
not meet the statutory 60-day filing requirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. While we had 


previously determined the evidence provided by the applicant in 
support of his request was insufficient to convince us he was the 
victim of an error or injustice under 10 USC 1552, or reprisal 
under 10 USC 1034, we determined it appropriate to refer the 
matter to the IG and defer our final decision in this case until 
such time as the IG had an opportunity to look into the matter at 
hand. Having been informed of the results of the IG’s efforts, 
we remain unconvinced the applicant is the victim of an error, 
injustice, or reprisal. In this respect, we note DoD-IG approved 
the SAF/IG request to dismiss the applicant’s complaint, noting 
the applicant himself conceded that he was not subject to 
retaliation for making a protected communication – a prerequisite 
for a finding of reprisal. Therefore, in view of the above and 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

2. 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 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-2011-04023 in Executive Session on 12 Mar 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 20 Jun 12, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair