AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
  XXXXXXX 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00205 

COUNSEL:  

 

 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

 
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 
of  1  Mar  07  through  29  Feb  08  be  removed  from  his  Officer 
Selection Record (OSR).   
 
2.  His Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM) be upgraded  to a 
Defense  Meritorious  Service  Medal  (DMSM).  (Counsel  amended 
request in rebuttal) 
 
3.  His  corrected  record  meet  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) 
for  the  Calendar  Year  2008B  (CY08B/P0508B)  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Central Selection Board (CSB). 
  
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The contested OPR was diluted to reduce his chances of promotion 
in  reprisal  for  identifying,  as  a  Defense  Travel  System  (DTS) 
reviewer, expenses the rater had claimed for a TDY that were not 
allowed.   
 
In  his  supplemental  statement,  the  applicant  compares  his  1  Mar 
2007  through  29  Feb  2008  OPR  and  PRF  with  the  previous  one  (1 
Mar  2006  through  29  Feb  2007)  written  by  the  rater.    He 
identifies the rater’s failure to include the applicant brokered 
a  $3  billion  deal  to  sell  C-17’s  and  C-130Js  to  Qatar  in  his 
OPR,  although  it  was  included  in  his  PRF.    Further,  he 
identifies  that  the  rater  used  words  that  downplayed  his  other 
accomplishments  such  as  “assisted  with  foreign  military  sales” 
when  the  applicant  “led  the  teams”.    Also,  he  used  “challenge, 
groom,  and  advocate”  which  the  applicant  believes  suggests  that 
he is not immediately ready to take on command responsibilities.   
 
In  the  Rater’s  Overall  Assessment  where  previously  his  OPRs 
strongly  pushed  for  Professional  Military  Education  (PME)  and 
recommendations  for  positions  of  increased  responsibility,  the 
rater  failed  to  include  a  strong  push  statement  which  indicates 
he  did  not  want  him  to  be  promoted;  especially  compared  to  the 
PRF the rater prepared for his 2007 Below-the-Primary-Zone (BPZ) 
consideration.    In  the  first  line  of  the  2008  PRF  the  term 
“foreign advisor” was substituted for the word “diplomat” in the 
2007  PRF  giving  it  less  impact.    Also,  the  statement  “SDE  a 
 

 

must,  then  reconnaissance  SQ/CC”  in  the  2007  PRF  is  downgraded 
to  “SQ  command!  Then  send  to  SDE!”  in  2008  and  signals  that  he 
is  not  yet  ready  for  SDE  and,  therefore,  not  ready  for 
promotion. 
 
He  never  received  performance  feedback  sessions,  as  required.  
The  6  Dec  2007  date  of  the  last  feedback  session  completed  that 
is  indicated  on  the  contested  report  was  the  meeting  during 
which the rater expressed his belief that his Chinese background 
would lead him to became a Chinese spy if he became an Assistant 
Air Attache’ and was not a feedback session. 
 
The rater downgraded the duty description in the PRF using words 
that  signaled  a  reduction  in  importance  and  breadth  of  duties.  
The phase “directs/coordinates” in the 2007 PRF is downgraded to 
“executes” in 2008 which implies followership.   
 
Although  the  applicant  did  not  request  the  upgrade  of  his  JSCM 
to  a  DMSM  in  his  original  application,  in  his  rebuttal  to  the 
advisory  opinions,  his  counsel  states  the  applicant  requests  it 
be  upgraded,  contending  the  rater  deliberately  and  improperly 
downgraded  the  decoration  in  retaliation  for  the  applicant’s 
efforts to ensure he did not make an improper TDY expense claim.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  is  presently  serving  on  active  duty  in  the  grade 
of  major  having  assumed  that  grade  effective  and  with  a  date  of 
rank (DOR) of 1 Mar 2005. 
 
On  15  Jan  2009,  after  the  applicant  left  for  a  new  assignment, 
he filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) citing nine 
allegations  against  the  rater.  On  8  Oct  2009  the  initial 
investigation  determined  that  none  of  the  allegations  were 
substantiated  including  two  regarding  the  rater’s  fraudulent 
submission  of  travel  vouchers  and  one  regarding  the  rater 
directing  the  applicant  to  take  leave.    The  IG  Report  of 
Investigation (ROI) is at Exhibit B.   
 
The  applicant  requested  a  second  investigation  and  on  17  Nov 
2010  the  Central  Command  (CENTCOM)  IG  submitted  their  report.  
The  investigating  officer  (IO)  agreed  with  all  but  one  of  the 
previous  analyses  and  determinations.    The  IO  did  not  concur 
with  the  Not  Substantiated  violation  of  AFI  36-03003,  Military 
Leave  Program,  noting  commanders  cannot  require  members  to  take 
leave  for  the  convenience  of  the  government.    He  acknowledged 
this  to  be  the  case  even  though  the  applicant  was  initially 
granted holiday leave in conjunction with his TDY and the travel 
costs  were  at  the  government  expense.    When  the  applicant 
decided  to  return  early,  even  though  it  violated  the  intent  for 

2 

 

 

The 

remaining 

eight 

were 

allegations 

granting  him  leave,  and  would  cause  the  government  to  incur 
additional  travel  costs,  it  was  still  in  violation  of  the 
regulation. 
Not 
Substantiated.  The CENTCOM IG ROI is at Exhibit B.   
 
On  14  Mar  2011,  SAF/IGQ  provided  their  final  response  to  the 
applicant, advising him the leave he was forced to take would be 
reinstated  and  the  other  issues  identified  in  his  complaint, 
along  with  their  analysis  and  documentation,  would  be  provided 
to  the  rater’s  current  leadership  for  them  to  take  action  as 
they see fit and they considered the matter closed.  The SAF/IGQ 
letter is at Exhibit B.   
   
 
The applicant has four non-selections for promotion to the grade 
of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY08B/P0508B,  CY09B/P0509B, 
CY10A/P0510A,  and  CY11A/P0511a  Lieutenant  Colonel  Central 
Selection  Board  (CSBs).    The  governing  directive  is  AFI36-2501, 
Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, 16 Jul 04. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSID  recommends  denial  of  voiding  the  contested  OPR 
because  there  is  no  evidence  it  was  unjust  or  inaccurate  as 
rendered.  The applicant did not prove that the feedback did not 
occur  as  recorded  on  the  contested  OPR;  that  he  was  the  victim 
of  reprisal  resulting  from  filing  an  IG  complaint  against  his 
rater;  and  the  report  was  erroneous  or  unjust  based  on  its 
content.    The  applicant  only  provided  his  personal  opinion 
regarding what the applicant felt should or should not have been 
included on the OPR in order to make it a stronger report. 
 
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.    
 
HQ  AFPC/PB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  an 
SSB  on  the  grounds  his  medal  was  not  contained  in  his  OSR.    The 
applicant’s  JSCM  was  placed  in  his  OSR  on  5  Sept  2008  and  seen 
by the board on 8 Sep 2008. 
 
The complete PB evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSOO  recommends  denial  of  the  applicants  request  to 
void the 29 Feb 2008 OPR and SSB consideration. This is based on 
the  DPSID  OPR  denial  recommendation  and  PB’s  verification  that 
the  citation  was  filed  in  the  applicant’s  OSR  in  time  to  meet 
his 8 Sep 08 CSB. 
 
The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
    
HQ  AFPC/DPSIDRA  states  the  applicant’s  actual  request  is  vague 
regarding  a  decoration.  They  were  unable  to  verify  that  an 
injustice  exists  as  the  decoration  was  awarded  to  the  applicant 
within  the  time  limits  outlined  in  AFI  36-2803,  and  it  was  in 

3 

 

 

the  applicant’s  folder  when  he  met  the  CY08  Promotion  Board. 
Therefore,  they  recommend  disapproval  for  a  change  of  the  Given 
Under  My  Hand  Date  of  the  JSCM  which  they  believed  was  the 
applicants request.   
 
DPSIDRA  also  identifies  that  they  do  not  have  the  authority  to 
deal  with  Joint  decorations  which  are  awarded  by  the  Department 
of  Defense.    However,  upon  the  request  of  the  applicant,  the 
office  will  contact  a  Joint  Agency  for  assistance  in  locating 
the  appropriate  Joint  Decoration  Headquarters  so  the  applicant 
can submit a correction request.  
 
A complete copy of the DPSIDRA evaluation is at Exhibit F. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:      
 
Regarding  the  OPR,  Counsel  states  the  applicant  did  sign  the 
contested  OPR,  but  checked  the  “No”  block  stating  he  did  not 
receive  feedback  as  required.  The  applicant  also  requested  a 
meeting  with  his  additional  rater  to  discuss  feedback,  but  the 
rater  refused  to  allow  the  applicant  to  contact  the  additional 
rater. 
 
Counsel  also  objects  to  the  claim  that  the  applicant  did  not 
substantiate  his  claims  of  reprisal.    She  references  the  14  Mar 
2011  SAF/IGQ  final  response  which  identifies  the  leave  the 
applicant  was  forced  to  take  will  be  reinstated.    Also,  the 
indication  that  the  applicant’s  complaint  along  with  their 
analysis  and  documentation  would  be  provided  to  the  rater’s 
current  leadership  for  them  to  take  action,  led  them  to  believe 
there  was  more  wrong  doing  on  the  part  of  the  rater,  although 
Counsel admits they were not provided a copy of the analysis. 
 
The  applicant’s  IG  complaint  is  used  several  times  in  the 
applicant’s  review  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  to  substantiate 
claims  about  the  motivation  of  his  rater  and  argue  against 
DPSID’s  recommendations.    Additionally,  Counsel  identifies  that 
the  applicant  is  not  contending  that  his  failure  to  be  promoted 
is  a  reason  to  void  the  OPR.    The  applicant’s  position  is  that 
it  is  a  consequence  of  the  rater’s  deliberate  and  inappropriate 
retaliation and therefore should be removed. 
 
In response to DPSIDRA addressing the JSCM, Counsel acknowledges 
that  the  medal  was  in  his  records  when  meeting  the  promotion 
board.  Also,  in  response  to  the  comment  that  the  request  was 
vague,  Counsel  says  that  in  the  first  paragraph  of  the 
application,  the  applicant  requests  that  his  medal  be  upgraded 
from  a  JSCM  to  a  DMSM  in  line  with  the  standard  decoration 
awarded  for  the  applicant’s  tour.    Counsel  states  the  rater 
deliberately  and  improperly  downgraded  the  decoration  in 
retaliation  for  the  applicant’s  efforts  to  ensure  the  rater  did 
not  make  an  improper  TDY  expense  claim.   Also,  the  deliberate 
delay in submitting the medal until right before the applicant’s 

4 

 

 

promotion board was done so the applicant would not have time to 
address the fact that he should have received a DMSM. 
 
Counsel  contends  the  applicant  provided  extensive  and 
substantial  information  the  rater  took  improper  retaliatory 
action  against  him  by  drafting  and  signing  an  improper  OPR  and 
delaying  and  downgrading  his  decoration.    The  OPR  was  improper 
and  should  be  removed  and  the  decoration  was  improperly 
downgraded and should be replaced with the DMSM. 
  
Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.    After 
thoroughly  conducting  our  independent  review  of  the  evidence  of 
record  and  noting  the  contentions  and  documentary  evidence 
presented  by  the  applicant’s  counsel,  we  are  not  persuaded  the 
applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  reprisal.    Further,  based  on  a 
totality  of  the  evidence  presented,  we  are  not  persuaded  the 
applicant has met his burden of establishing the existence of an 
error  or  an  injustice  in  his  records.    In  this  respect,  we  note 
the following: 
 
 
a.  The  CENTCOM  IG  conducted  two  investigations  of  the 
applicant’s  allegations  of  misconduct  by  two  officers,  to 
include  that  his  rater  had  reprised  against  him  by  removing  him 
as  a  DTS  review/approving  official  because  of  the  questions  he 
raised concerning a travel voucher he had submitted.  Other than 
his  allegation  that  his  command  required  him  to  take  additional 
leave  prior  to  a  TDY  in  violation  of  the  governing  Air  Force 
Pamphlet, none of the allegations were substantiated, noting the 
removal  of  the  applicant  as  a  DTS  review/approving  official  did 
not  constitute  a  negative  personnel  action.    In  view  of  this 
finding,  the  applicant’s  leave  was  restored.    The  SAF/IGQ 
reviewed  the  investigations,  provided  their  analysis  to  the 
rater’s  leadership  for  appropriate  action,  and  considered  the 
matter  closed,  as  the  final  resolution  was  within  the  command’s 
authority.    The  findings  of  the  CENTCOM  IG,  as  reviewed  by 
SAF/IGQ,  appear  to  be  supported  by  the  evidence  of  record  and 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  sufficient  evidence  to 
warrant overturning their decision.  Moreover, there has been no 
showing the investigations were improperly conducted.  Given the 
presumption  of  regularity  in  the  operation  of  governmental 
affairs and in the absence of corroborative documentary evidence 
establishing  impropriety,  it  is  presumed  that  officers  of  the 
government,  like  other  public  officials,  discharge  their  duties 

5 

 

 

b.  We  are  not  persuaded  the  contested  OPR  is  an  inaccurate 

correctly,  lawfully,  and  in  good  faith.    The  applicant  has  not 
provided  sufficient  evidence  to  overcome  this  presumption.    As 
such,  we  find  no  basis  to  exercise  our  statutory  authority  to 
request further investigation. 
 
 
assessment  of  his  performance  during  the  contested  period.  
Although  the  applicant’s  counsel  now  contends  the  report  was 
rendered  in  reprisal,  we  find  no  evidence  the  applicant  raised 
this allegation in his previous complaints to the IG.  While the 
applicant  contends  the  report  was  written  in  such  a  way  as  to 
dilute  and  lessen  his  accomplishments,  he  provides  no 
documentary evidence to substantiate this contention, other than 
his  own  personal  statement.    The  applicant  cites  differences 
between  the  wording  of  the  report  in  comparison  to  the  previous 
report  rendered  by  the  same  rater;  however,  we  do  not  find  this 
confirms  the  report  is  in  error  or  unjust,  as  raters  are  tasked 
with  evaluating  an  individual’s  performance  and  accomplishments 
during  the  period  for  which  the  report  is  rendered,  and  not 
those  which  occurred  outside  of  the  rating  period.    We  are  not 
convinced  the  rater  was  incapable  of  rendering  a  fair  and 
unbiased  evaluation  of  his  performance.    The  rater  was 
responsible  for  assessing  his  performance  and  in  the  absence  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  he  is  presumed  to  have  rendered  his 
evaluation,  honestly  and  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  based  on 
his  observations  of  the  applicant’s  performance.    We  have 
thoroughly  reviewed  the  documentation  provided  with  this 
application  and  the  evidence  of  record,  and  find  no  persuasive 
evidence  showing  he  was  rated  unfairly  or  the  rater  and  other 
evaluator  were  biased  and  prejudiced  against  him.    With  respect 
to the performance feedback the applicant did not receive, while 
such feedback is certainly desired and to be expected, Air Force 
policy  holds  that  failure  to  conduct  such  sessions  is  not  a 
valid  basis  to  invalidate  a  performance  report.    Moreover, 
although  the  applicant  states  the  rater  refused  to  allow  him  to 
contact  the  additional  rater  to  discuss  feedback,  nothing  has 
prevented  him  from  subsequently  contacting  him  to  garner  his 
support  of  his  request  to  void  the  report.    Based  on  the 
foregoing,  we  do  not  believe  the  decision  of  the  ERAB  to  deny 
his request to void the report should be overturned.   
 
c.  Although  the  JSCM  was  not  listed  on  his  OSB  reviewed  by 
 
the  CY08B  Lieutenant  Colonel  CSB,  a  copy  of  the  citation  to 
accompany the award was placed in his records prior to the board 
convening.    In  view  of  this  and  given  our  above  findings 
concerning  the  contested  report,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend 
that he meet an SSB. 
 
 
d.  This Board is without authority to act on his request to 
upgrade  the  JSCM  to  a  DMSM,  since  we  are  limited  to  those 
actions  which  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  may  take  and  note 
the  DMSM  is  awarded  in  the  name  of  the  Secretary  of  Defense.  
Regardless,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  has  pursued  available 
avenues  of  administrative  relief  within  the  Department  of 
Defense  to  request  an  upgrade  of  this  decoration.   We  must  also 

6 

 

 

note  that,  although  the  applicant’s  counsel  contends  the 
decision  not  to  award  him  an  end-of-tour  DMSM  was  an  act  of 
reprisal,  as  allegedly  was  the  contested  report,  the  applicant 
made no such allegation in either of his previous IG complaints.  
 
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  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-2012-00206 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 11, w/atchs. 
     Exhibit B.  Master Military Personnel Records and IG 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  
 Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated,27 Feb 12. 
 Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/PB, dated 23 Mar 12. 
 Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 5 Apr 12.  
 Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 5 Mar 12 
 Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Apr 12. 
 Exhibit H.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 May 12, w/atchs. 

XXXXX, Vice Chair 
XXXXX, Member 
XXXXX, Member 

 
 
 
 

 

  Investigations (withdrawn) 

XXXXX 
Vice Chair 

7