RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04050 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 
15 June 2007 thru 24 May 2008 be voided from his records. 

 

2. The AF IMT 709, Promotion Recommendation Form, (PRF) for the 
Calendar Year 2008 Lieutenant Colonel promotion cycle be voided 
from his records. 

 

3. The 2007 Field Grade Officer (FGO) of the Year Award be 
restored to his record. 

 

4. He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for time 
served in Japan. 

 

5. His records be considered for promotion by a Special 
Selection Board (SSB). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The OPR ending 24 May 2008 did not adequately reflect his 
outstanding performance during the rated period. The OPR was 
drastically different from those he had received in the past. 
He has consistently been rated in the top 10% or higher. 

 

His raters were unduly influenced by the Military Equal 
Opportunity (MEO) report and drafted a poor OPR. The squadron 
commander told him that the wing commander pressured him to 
change the OPR following finalization of the MEO report. 

 

During that same rating period and with knowledge of the 
complainant’s allegations, his commanders awarded him an Air 
Force Commendation Medal and the 2007 Field Grade Officer of the 
Year Award. Additionally, they recommended him for the 2008 
Astronaut Board. 

 

Like the OPR, the PRF was influenced by the MEO report and did 
not correctly reflect his potential for promotion. He requests 
his records meet an SSB so that he may have a fresh opportunity 
to progress and serve his country. He was wrongly passed over 
by the CY09, CY10, and CY11 Promotion Boards. 

 


He was not presented with an award during his Permanent Change 
of Station (PCS) from Japan. The service he provided to his 
country while in Japan was not recognized with an award. It is 
unjust and unfair that the MEO report had the effect of erasing 
the commendable service he provided during that time. His 
commander told him he wrote a citation for an MSM with First Oak 
Leaf Cluster on his behalf. The award was disapproved because 
of the MEO investigation. The award should have been conferred 
and should have appeared in his records for the promotion board 
to consider. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides his counsel’s 
brief with attachments. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Air Force 
commissioned officer in the grade of Major (O-4) with an 
effective date of rank of 01 August 2004. His Total Active 
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) and Total Federal 
Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) are 01 June 1994. 

 

In response to his request for entitlement to the MSM for time 
served at Misawa Air Base Japan, Headquarters (HQ) AFPC/DPSIDRA, 
Air Force Recognitions Programs, by letter dated 15 December 
2011, (Exhibit B) advised the applicant that after careful 
review of his claim they were returning this portion of his 
request without further action. Before submitting a DD Form 149 
requesting a change to his military record, the applicant must 
go back to the original approval authority, HQ Pacific Air 
Forces (PACAF); and allow for administrative relief. 

 

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and 
Decorations Program, paragraph 3.3.8, the applicant must exhaust 
administrative channels for reconsideration of the MSM before 
utilizing the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military 
Records (AFBCMR) process. Once a decision has been rendered by 
the decoration approval authority and the applicant believes an 
injustice still exists, only then can he resubmit a DD Form 149 
with the approval authority’s final decision through the AFBCMR 
process. 

 

With regard to the applicant’s request for his 2007 Field Grade 
Officer of the Year Award to be restored to his record, 
AFPC/DPSIDRA states; The Field Grade Officer of the Year Award 
is not a Special Trophy or Air Force level award. Normally, 
that type of award, just like a quarterly award, is won at the 
local unit, group or wing etc. level. There is nothing actually 
filed in the member’s record to show that he/she won this type 


of award. Quarterly and annual awards that are won (not just 
nominated for) can possibly be mentioned in a member’s 
evaluation. Other than that, there are no documents filed in 
the military personnel record. 

 

Regarding his OPR for the period of 15 June 2007 thru 
24 May 2008; the applicant filed an appeal through the 
Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 
10 March 06; to request the OPR be voided from his records. The 
ERAB considered the request, however, they were not convinced 
the report was unjust or wrong, and denied the requested relief. 

 

The following is a resume of his last five OPR ratings 
commencing with the report closing on 14 June 2006. 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 14 Jun 2006 Meets Standards (MS) 

 14 Jun 2007 MS 

 24 May 2008 MS (Contested Report) 

 24 May 2009 MS 

 29 Apr 2010 MS 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states, the applicant 
contends that his OPR, rendered for the period of 15 June 2007 
through 24 May 2008 and PRF for the CY08 Lieutenant Colonel 
promotion cycle were rendered unjustly because he received a 
Letter of Counseling (LOC) for an incident that was misconstrued 
as unprofessional correspondence. A subsequent MEO 
investigation revealed the allegations of sexual harassment made 
against the applicant were substantiated. 

 

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively 
challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all 
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 of record on the 
contested evaluation. 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. 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. The applicant has not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good 
faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the 
time. 

 


Based on lack of corroborating evidence provided by the 
applicant, and the administrative sufficiency pertaining to the 
MEO findings, they recommend that neither the OPR nor the PRF be 
voided from the applicant’s permanent record. The applicant has 
not provided compelling evidence to show that the reports are 
unjust or inaccurate as written. We defer consideration of the 
other portion of the applicant’s requests to the appropriate 
offices of primary responsibility. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states the applicant has 
four non-selections to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel by the 
CY08B (8Sep08), CY09B (8Jun09), CY10A (8Mar10), and CY11A 
(7Mar11) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSB. 

 

DPSOO further states that based on HQ AFPC/DPSID’s 
recommendation to deny removing the 24 May 2008 OPR and PRF, 
they recommend denial of the request for SSB consideration. The 
applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the 
reports are unjust or inaccurate as written. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 13 January 2012 for review and comment within 30 
days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received 
a response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice regarding his requests for removal from his 
record of the OPR rendered on him for the period 15 June 2007 
through 24 May 2008, removal of the PRF rendered for the CY08 
Lieutenant Colonel CSB and to be considered for promotion by 
SSB. Regarding the applicant’s request for reinstatement of his 


Squadron Field Grade Officer of the Year award, in our view the 
commander’s action was not arbitrary or capricious and was 
within his discretionary authority. Additionally, we note this 
type of award is not maintained in any official Air Force 
record. As such, we find no basis to act on this part of the 
applicant’s request. Additionally, regarding the applicant’s 
request for award of an MSM, we agree with the letter sent to 
him on 15 December 2011 advising him he has not exhausted his 
administrative remedies. Should the applicant feel he is still 
the victim of error or injustice after exhausting his 
administrative remedies on this issue, he may reapply to the 
Board. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 this application 
BC-2011-04050 in Executive Session on 17 May 2012, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 October 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 15 December 2011. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 December 2011. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 5 January 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 January 2012 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair