RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  

 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-04982 
 
COUNSEL:  
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a close out date of 
28 April 2007 be removed from his records. 
 
2. He receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion 
to Lieutenant Colonel. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
In  a  5-page  statement  from  his  counsel  and  a  5-page  personal 
statement, the applicant outlines the events that led up to him 
receiving  an  LOR  with  a  UIF  and  a  referral  OPR.    He  contends 
that as a result of these actions he was denied promotion to the 
grade  of  lieutenant  colonel.  Among  the  major  points  he  makes 
are: 
 
of 
While 
unsubstantiated  allegations  and  rumors  resulted  in  a  Command 
Directed Investigation (CDI).   
 
As a result of the CDI, the applicant was issued an LOR and UIF.  
This  action  caused  his  OPR  to  be  referred.    The  main 
consideration  of  the  OPR  was  that  he  engaged  in  conduct 
unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman by merely boasting that 
he was involved in misconduct, which he rebuts.  He should not 
be considered to have committed conduct unbecoming from hearsay; 
no witnesses were produced only innuendo.   
 
He requested the Air Force Personnel Center remove the OPR from 
his  records  due  to  the  lack  of  evidence  to  justify  the 
objectionable comments.  That appeal was denied in January 2009. 
 
He  was  also  concerned  that  the  Investigating  Officer  was  not 
disinterested  or  neutral,  as  required  by  the  regulation.    The 
investigator  in  this  case  had  an  unusual  relationship  with  the 
main  witness.    This  ultimately  had  a  negative  impact  on  the 
outcome of the investigation. 
 

Thailand, 

stationed 

in 

Bangkok, 

a 

series 

 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  5-page 
statement  from  counsel,  a  5-page  personal  statement,  e-mails, 
the contested OPR and other supporting documentation. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  currently  on  active  duty  serving  in  the  grade 
of  major  (O-4).    On  4  June  2007,  pursuant  to  a  CDI,  the 
Investigating Officer substantiated the allegations of adultery, 
paying  for  sex  with  a  prostitute,  making  a  false  official 
statement, and as a result, conduct unbecoming of an officer and 
a gentleman.  According to the applicant, he was issued an LOR 
with a UIF.   
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained  in  the  letters  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of 
the Air Force which are at Exhibits C through E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial.    The  applicant  filed  an  appeal 
through  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeals  Board  (ERAB);  however, 
the ERAB was not convinced the report was inaccurate or unjust. 
 
The applicant received a referral OPR when a Commander Directed 
Investigation disclosed that he engaged in conduct unbecoming of 
an  officer  and  a  gentleman.    AFI  36-2406,  Officer  and  Enlisted 
Evaluation  Reports,  states  that  evaluators  are  strongly 
encouraged to comment in performance reports on misconduct that 
reflects a disregard of the law, whether it is civil law or the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice; if a member is convicted by a 
court-martial;  or  when  adverse  actions,  such  as  Article  15s, 
Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment or Counseling or placement on 
the Control Roster has been taken.   
 
The applicant received a letter of reprimand and an Unfavorable 
Information  File  for  the  substantiated  misconduct.    The  rating 
chain  chose  to  comment  on  the  underlying  conduct,  which  caused 
the  report  to  be  referred  to  the  applicant  for  comments  and 
consideration by the next evaluator.   
 
AFPC/DPSIM  provided  an  advisory  in  the  case  and  states  the 
applicant  did  not  provide  a  copy  of  the  LOR  or  UIF  to  review 
with  the  case.    No  evidence  was  provided  to  show  the  referral 
comments  in  the  OPR  were  inaccurate.    Nor  has  the  applicant 
provided  any  documentation  to  refute  the  findings  of  the  CDI.  
As  such,  the  inclusion  of  the  comments  were  appropriate  and 

 
 
within  the  evaluators  authority  to  document.    Accordingly,  the 
presumption  is  the  LOR  and  the  associated  UIF  are  valid  for 
mention in the contested OPR.   
 
It  appears  the  OPR  was  accomplished  in  accordance  with 
applicable  Air  Force  regulations.    It  is  the  responsibility  of 
the  rater  to  document  performance  during  the  reporting  period 
and  they  determine  what  is  documented.    It  appears  the  rater 
determined  that  these  incidents  warranted  documenting  in  the 
OPR.    The  applicant  was  provided  an  opportunity  to  rebut  the 
rater’s comments and this was included with the referral OPR for 
filing in his permanent evaluation record. 
 
An  evaluation  report  is  considered  to  represent  the  rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time that 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  applicant  has  not  provided  evidence  to  show  the 
report is unjust or inaccurate.   
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOO  recommends  denial.    The  applicant  has  one  non-
selection  to  Lieutenant  Colonel.    Based  on  AFPC/DPSID’s 
recommendation to deny the applicant’s request to void the OPR, 
it is also recommended his request for a special selection board 
be denied. 
 
The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
AFPC/DPSIMC  recommends  denial.  The  use  of  LOR’s  by  commanders 
and  supervisors  is  an  exercise  of  supervisory  authority  and 
responsibility  directed  by  AFI  36-2907,  Unfavorable  Information 
File Program.  
 
The complete DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Through  counsel,  the  applicant  reiterates  there  is  no  evidence 
of  actual  substantiated  misconduct,  just  the  mere  boasting  of 
such.  To properly conclude that an officer committed acts that 
are  unbecoming,  the  elements  of  proof  of  that  charge  must  be 
assessed.    The  commander  did  not  have  to  prove  the  allegations 
for an LOR, he just had to sign the letter based on his personal 
beliefs,  thereby  denying  the  applicant  an  opportunity  to  prove 
that what he did was not a criminal act. 
 
The  advisory  regarding  the  OPR  did  not  discuss  or  refute  the 
argument  and  theory  raised  by  this  application.    It  basically 
contains  the  typical  boilerplate  response  that  the  OPR  is  in 
compliance with instructions.  There is no effort to defend the 

 
 
wording of the OPR that was challenged.  There being no cogent 
reason  expressed  for  why  this  wording  is  acceptable,  the  OPR 
should  be  removed  from  his  record  for  containing  erroneous 
inflammatory information.    
 
The  applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit G. 
 
EXAMINER’S NOTE:  The applicant was granted an SSB by the CY12A 
Promotion Board, to include his OPR from 4 December 2010 through 
12  November  2011  and  to  reflect  on  his  Officer  Selection  Brief 
his deployed commander duty entry.  
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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  injustice.    After 
careful  consideration  of  the  applicant’s  request,  the  evidence 
of record and counsel’s response, we find insufficient evidence 
of  error  or  injustice  to  warrant  corrective  action.    The  facts 
and  opinions  expressed  in  the  advisory  opinions  appear  to  be 
based  on  the  evidence  of  record  and  have  not  been  adequately 
rebutted by the applicant or his counsel.  Additionally, counsel 
argues,  the  applicant  was  denied  due  process.    We  disagree.  
Letters  of  Reprimand  are  a  quality  force  management  tool 
designed to improve, correct and instruct those who depart from 
standards  of  performance,  conduct,  bearing  and  integrity  and 
whose actions degrade the unit’s mission.  In this instance, the 
extreme  boasting  and  braggadocio,  as  counsel  states,  had  a 
direct  impact  on  several  members  of  the  unit.    Ultimately,  the 
commander  has  the  discretion  to  decide  which  disciplinary 
measure to use after considering the available evidence.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  evidence  provided,  other  than  the  applicant 
and counsel’s assertions, which would lead the Board to believe 
that the actions by the imposing commander were inappropriate or 
that he did not have access to all of the information necessary 
on which to base his decision.  The applicant has not provided 
any  evidence  showing  that  the  imposing  commander  abused  his 
discretionary  authority,  or  that  the  applicant’s  substantial 
rights  were  violated.    As  such,  we  accept  the  recommendations 
made  by  the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  and 
adopt  the  rationale  expressed  in  the  advisory  opinions  as  the 
primary  basis  for  our  determination  the  applicant  has  not  been 
the  victim  of  error  or  injustice.    Absent  persuasive  evidence 
the  applicant  was  denied  rights  to  which  he  was  entitled, 
appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or  appropriate 

 
 
standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to  disturb  the 
existing record. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-04982  in  Executive  Session  on  20  September  2012,  under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 11, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 May 12. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 11 Jun 12. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 13 Mar 12. 
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 12. 
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 24/25 Jul 12. 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
Panel Chair