Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03871
Original file (BC-2012-03871.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS






1.  His officer performance report (OPR) for the period of 
10 December 2002 through 9 December 2003, be voided and removed 
from his record.  

2.  His date of rank (DOR) of promotion to the grade of 
Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) be changed from 1 April 2006 to 
1 April 2005.

3.  His date of rank (DOR) of promotion to the grade of Colonel 
(Col) be changed from 1 October 2011 to 1 October 2010.

4.  He be granted back pay and allowances for the adjusted DORs.  

5.  He be granted any other benefits or entitlements that would 
have accrued with promotion on the CY04B Lt Col board and 
promotion on the in-the-zone Colonel board.  

6.  His retirement grade be adjusted to reflect the grade of 
Colonel, O-6.  

7.  His retirement pay and allowances be adjusted to account for 
the corrected dates of rank.  



One of his OPRs contains two factual errors and his rater 
engaged in reprisal.  As the top OPR for his Lieutenant Colonel 
Central Selection Board, the reprisal and OPR had an unjust 
impact and caused his non-selection for promotion.  

1.  The reprisal consisted of both adverse personnel action and 
written OPR comments indicative of poor performance.  

2.  The Squadron Director of Operations (DO) asked him to write 
and sign an OPR for someone he did not know and for whom he did 
not have the required period of supervision.  When he declined 
and utilized his chain of command to express his concerns, the 
DO took adverse personnel action by removing his supervisory 

	a. Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation System, requires raters to have 120 days of 
supervision in order to write an OPR.  It had been less than 30 
days since the DO designated him as the member's rater. After 
reading the AFI and consulting with military personnel flight, 
he informed the DO he did not have the required days of 
supervision and he did not know the member he was asked to 
report on, therefore, he could not sign the OPR.  

	b. In response, the DO sent an email to everyone in the unit 
with a subject line entitled “Hammer Time!!” The DO said it was 
not acceptable for anyone to refuse to write an OPR regardless 
of whether they knew the ratee or not.  The DO further stated:  

		(1). “I don't know this person” will not be accepted as an 

		(2). “There is no time like the present to get to know 
your fellow man.”  

		(3) “Let's face it, given good inputs, you can write on 
anyone and make it look good.”

4.  This guidance was contrary to AFI 36-2406.  He contacted 
his unit commander to express his concerns.  In reprisal, the 
DO removed his supervisory responsibilities.  

	a. Utilization of his chain of command is a protected 
communication per AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints 
Resolution. The loss of supervisory responsibilities 
constituted adverse personnel action as defined in DoDD 
7050.06, Military Whistle Blower Protection.  This loss was a 
significant change in duties, and it relieved him of 
responsibilities that were consistent with his grade and duty 

	b. After he made the protected communication the 15 Nov 03, 
records show the reprisal in that he no longer supervised any 

	c. His subsequent OPR was unjust.  As the Chief of Weapons 
and Tactics, section III, “Job Description”, Item 2 “Key 
Duties” did not reflect supervision of personnel as would be 
expected of his rank and duty position.  The OPR had an unjust 
impact and caused a non-selection.

5.  In addition to making a protected communication to his 
chain of command, he also made a protected communication to the 
Inspector General (IG) regarding the squadron leave policy.  

	a. As a deployed Expeditionary Squadron Commander, he learned 
of a unit policy that prohibited members from taking leave 
following return from deployments and compensatory time off.  
Specifically, the Squadron Commander implemented a policy that 
prohibited members from being on leave from the unit for more 
than 14 days.  AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, states in 
part, “Give members the opportunity to take at least one leave 
period of 14 consecutive days or more every fiscal year 
(FY).”  He thought the squadron policy deviated from the AFI 
guidance, so he inquired about the policy.

	b. In response to his query, the DO explained the rationale 
for the policy in an email in which he stated he would not 
sign off on the idea that members take their comp time and 
then follow that with leave. In his mind, that was double 

	c. Following the DO email, he contacted the Squadron 
Commander.  The commander said this was also his policy, and he 
added that he personally believed it sent a message that members 
aren't important in the unit if they are allowed to be gone for 
more than 14 days.  Since members were permitted compensatory 
time following deployments, he would not let them go on leave 
afterwards even when members weren't needed for military 

	d. Upon learning the Squadron DO denied leave for an enlisted 
member because of this 14-day policy and in violation of AFI 
36-3003, He filed a third-party Inspector General Complaint on 
behalf of the enlisted member.  

		(1). He obtained a copy of the IG case files through a 
Freedom of Information Act request. 

		(2). The case files reflected the IG sent a letter 
regarding the complaint to his additional rater on 3 Feb 04.

		(3). The letter had sufficient details to identify him as 
the complainant.

		(4). His rater signed his OPR three weeks after learning 
of the IG complaint.  

6.  Professional Military Education courses teach members that 
the first and last lines of rater comments on an OPR are 
considered to be the most important.  On his 9 Dec 2003 OPR, 
the rater leads off his last line with "Outstanding 
professional.”  The additional rater follows in his first line 
with “Outstanding results-oriented professional with a capital 
“P.”  The additional rater's last line also included the 
comments "Top all-around officer” and “excels in all tasks.”  
While these phrases had positive words, they were notably 
absent of any stratification and conveyed poor performance.  

7.  As a graduated Squadron Commander and Deputy Group 
Commander, his primary duties included reviewing OPRs and 
providing feedback/counseling regarding reports to the 12 
Squadron Commanders in his Group.  He also wrote, reviewed, or 
edited all of the Group’s promotion recommendation forms 
(PRFs) for the officers who were meeting promotion boards for 
Major, Lieutenant Colonel, and Colonel.  Having written or 
reviewed hundreds of OPRs in this role, he could say from 
experience that an additional rater who uses no stratification 
and instead characterizes the officer as a "Top all-around 
officer" who "excels in all tasks" has clearly indicated the 
lowest performing officer.  

8.  Including language to indicate he was at the lowest levels 
of officer performance is unjust given the contrast to his 
documented performance throughout the reporting period. The 
non-selection for promotion is evidence of the impact and 
injustice resulting from the combination of reprisal and 
factual errors.

9.  The subject OPR closed out on 9 Dec 2003 and erroneously 
showed 365 days of supervision in block 6. On 11 Dec 02, he 
was assigned to another squadron and was enrolled in two 
formal training courses.  He remained in that squadron until May 
2003.  Although his training report cites 23 May 03 as the end 
of training, administrative issues with the permanent change 
of assignment (PCA) delayed his arrival to his current squadron 
by approximately 5 days. The PCA occurred 169 days into the 
reporting period.  

	a. Three months after his arrival he received orders to 
deploy to a remote base in Pakistan.  He departed on 2 Sep 03 
and returned 102 days later on 13 Dec 03.  During this extended 
temporary duty (TDY) he served as an Expeditionary Squadron 
Commander, and was supervised by and reported directly to the 
Expeditionary Operations Group Commander.  

	b. The rater who signed the subject OPR remained at home 
station.  The TDY was more than 30 consecutive days where he 
did not perform duties under the supervision of the rater, and 
the TDY was not normally part of his duties (such as those of 
an inspection team member as listed in the AFI), the 102 days 
of TDY should have been deducted from the supervisory period 
lAW AFI 36-2406.

	c. Records show the rater had a maximum of 94 days of 
supervision instead of the 365 days indicated on the subject 
OPR. Thus, the rater did not have the requisite 120 days of 
supervision to write his OPR.  The OPR is factually incorrect 
and should be removed from his records.

10.  The second factual error on his OPR relates to his 
distinguished graduate (DG) status from the Joint Firepower 
Course (JFC).  The JFC recognized the top three graduates as 
DGs based upon academic merit.  He contacted the JFC and found 
they did not identify the ranked order of the three 
distinguished graduates.  The subject OPR erroneously lowered 
the stratification of his performance by indicating he was #3 
out of 45.  It was incorrect as it excluded that he 
finished the course as either #1 or #2 of 45 graduates.  

His sustained record of performance demonstrates he would have 
been selected during the CY04 board except for the reprisal.  
Additionally, he arguably would have received a “definitely 
promote” (DP) from his senior rater on the CY04 board.  His CYO5 
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was written by the same 
senior rater and assigned a DP rating.  Had his 2003 OPR not 
included factual errors or reprisal, his record would have been 
more competitive and he may have received a DP rating.  As a 
minimum, his record did not receive fair consideration during 
the CY04 PRF process or the CY 04 selection board.

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



According to documents extracted from his Military Personnel 
Record (MPR) the applicant is a former commissioned officer of 
the Regular Air Force.  He retired on 1 May 2012 and was 
credited with 20 years, and 16 days of active service for 

On 25 January 2004, the applicant filed an IG complaint via an 
AF IMT 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and 
Abuse Complaint Registration, as a third party, on behalf of a 
member of his squadron.  The complaint alleged improper leave 
denial.  He alleged that the squadron DO violated the rights of 
the member by denying her right and entitlement to take leave 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3003.  

On 28 June 2004, the Nellis Air Force Base IG responded to the 
applicant that after a thorough review and analysis of his 
complaint, they determined the squadron leave issue was being 
handled correctly and the policy was in accordance with AFI 36-
3003.  They informed the applicant that as his complaint 
concerned a third party issue, they could not address specific 
circumstances to him; however, the third party could pursue 
their individual issues directly with the IG.  They advised the 
applicant if he personally experienced difficulty with any leave 
policies, to please feel free to contact them once again.  They 
thanked him for submitting his concerns through the IG complaint 

On 5 November 2008, the applicant filed an IG complaint (Exhibit 
C - WITHDRAWN) with the Secretary of the Air Force IG (SAF/IG) 
and presented numerous allegations against his squadron of 
assignment.  The complexity of the complaints required two 
separate Major Command IG investigations.  Headquarters Air 
Combat Command (ACC) and Headquarters Air Force Material 
Command (AFMC) IG offices independently investigated his 

	a. The specific allegations considered by ACC/IG are as 




	b. The specific allegations considered by AFMC/IG are as 











	c. On 22 December 2009, The Complaints Resolution Directorate, 
Office of The Inspector General, Secretary of the Air Force 
(SAF/IGQ) sent the applicant a letter which stated they 
reviewed the reports from ACC/IG and AFMC/IG and concurred with 
their findings.  Command action was taken to remedy the one 
substantiated allegation and the matter was closed.

	d. The applicant appealed to SAF/IGQ and stated that ACC/IG 
only investigated three allegations and did not include his 
allegation of XXXXXXXXXX as well as the inclusion of subsequent 
information that was not available during the investigation.  

	e. In their 23 March 2010, response, SAF/IGQ conveyed to the 
applicant that two independent commander-directed investigations 
(ACC and AFMC) reviewed all of his allegations and both 
independently came to the same conclusion.  They reiterated the 
SAF/IGQ case closure letter (22 Dec 09), para 3, stated the 
allegation that XXXXXXXXXX  was found to be not substantiated.  

	f. It was their determination XXXXXXXXXX  These findings also 
received a legal review which found the determination to be 
legally sufficient.  Therefore, further investigation of 
XXXXXXXXXX was not warranted.

They advised the applicant if he had additional information that 
was not available during the ACC and AFMC investigations, he could 
direct this information to the ACC/A8 Director and 303 
Aeronautical Systems Wing, respectively, for reconsideration.  
They considered the appeal of this matter closed.  



AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to 
remove the contested OPR.  DPSID states they do not believe the 
applicant provided sufficient substantiating documentation or 
evidence to prove his allegation of two factual errors.  One 
error being that the rater did not have the required minimum of 
120 days of supervision to write the report and the second error 
being that he should have been ranked #1 or #2 graduate from 
the Joint Firepower Course, as opposed to #3 of 45 graduates as 
written on the contested OPR.

	a. Regarding the error that the rater did not have the 
required minimum of 120 days of supervision to write the 
report, the applicant provides as evidence his own words of the 
sequence of events which he believes should have been deducted 
from the 365 days of supervision.  However, the applicant 
merely provides an Air Form 475, Education/Training Report which 
accounts for the applicant's absence while attending a formal 
course for a total of 12 weeks.  The remainder of the 243 days 
appears to be valid as the applicant provided no proof that any 
additional days should have been deducted from the contested 
rating period.  They were unable to determine the authenticity 
of the travel voucher, and without a copy of an official 
Contingency Exercise Deployment (CED) order, it is impossible 
to make a sound determination on the applicant's claim.  

	b. Regarding the error that the applicant should have been 
ranked #1 or #2 graduate from the Joint Firepower Course, as 
opposed to #3 of 45 graduates as written on the contested OPR, 
the applicant provided absolutely no evidence that the ranking 
was incorrect.  The applicant has merely provided his own 
personal opinions, unsupported allegations, and absolutely no 
proof that these events are accurate as described; as such, 
they dismiss this allegation and find it to be without merit.

	c. In addition, the applicant alleged that the rater engaged 
in reprisal action against him and removed him from supervisory 
responsibilities after he refused to write an OPR on a 
subordinate for which he did not have the required number of 
days of supervision as required per AFI 36-2406.  Again, the 
applicant has provided no proof in this case to substantiate 
that the rater reprised against him or that he may have been 
removed from supervisory responsibilities for cause.  The burden 
of proof is entirely on the applicant. 

	d. The applicant claimed the contested OPR was inconsistent 
with his subsequently written OPR.  AFI 36-2401, paragraph 
A1.5.2, states ratings are not erroneous or unjust because they 
are inconsistent with other ratings the applicant has received.  
In this case, they contend, the applicant's rating chain simply 
made a determination as to what was relevant information 
regarding the applicant's duty performance and promotion 
potential during this contested rating period and properly 
documented that performance on the contested OPR.  It is also 
not up to the applicant to determine that a stratification 
comment should have been reported on this OPR, but rather it is 
the rating chain's responsibility to make that determination as 
inclusion of stratification comments are not mandatory for 
mention.  The applicant did not provide proof that it was or 
was not the evaluators’ direct intentions in omitting 
stratification comments during this rating period.

	e. AFI 36-2401, Paragraph A1.3, states “the most effective 
evidence consists of statements from the evaluators who signed 
the report or from other individuals in the rating chain when 
the report was signed.”  However, statements from all of the 
evaluators during the contested period are conspicuously 
absent.  Without the benefit of these statements, they can only 
conclude that the OPR is accurate as written.  Such evidence 
from the rating officials could have shed light on these 
matters; as such, they do not see any valid justification, as 
presented by the applicant, which would justify removal of this 
contested OPR from his permanent evaluation record.  The 
applicant failed to provide any information or explanation from 
the rating chain of record on the contested evaluation

	f. In the absence of information from evaluators, official 
substantiation of an error or injustice from the Inspector 
General or Military Equal Opportunity & Treatment is 
appropriate, but not provided in this case.  The applicant did 
provide what appears to be an official IG complaint; however, 
it pertained to resolved leave issues in which the applicant was 
made aware that the squadron leave was handled correctly; but 
there was nothing that addressed the reprisal action or 
indicated that any adverse personnel action was taken against 
the applicant.  In consideration of the sum of evidence 
provided, there is no valid basis in which they could support 
removal of the OPR as written.

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.  DPSOO states based on the 
evidence provided, they do not support a change to the 
applicant's dates of rank to the grades of Lt Colonel and 

	a. In Feb 05, the applicant requested his nonselection from 
the CY04B Lt Colonel board be removed and that he be allowed to 
meet the CY05A Lt Colonel board as an IPZ eligible.  The 
applicant, at that time, contended that he had insufficient 
time on active duty to build a competitive record for promotion 
to Lt Colonel.  He only had 18 months on active duty; the first 
6 months were spent in training and the next 5 months on 
contingency TDY orders in addition to completing IDE via 
correspondence.  Additionally, his unit had extensive home-based 
mission requirements and supported continuous combat flight 
operations with only two scheduled down days in the past two 
years.  Due to training and deployments, he was unable to 
complete his advanced degree and was therefore, not competitive 
for promotion.  At no time did the applicant mention the OPR 
that was on file for the board.  The applicant's request was 

	b. Based on the applicant’s DOR to Lt Colonel, 1 Apr 06, he 
met the CY10C Colonel CSB which convened on 8 Nov 10.  He was 
selected for promotion with a DOR of 1 Oct 11.

	c. The applicant voluntarily retired 1 May 12 prior to 
having the required three years time-in-grade to retire as a 
Colonel.  Had the applicant been selected for promotion to Lt 
Colonel by the CY04B CSB and met the CY09D Colonel CSB as an 
IPZ eligible, his DOR to Colonel would have been 1 Sep 10.  The 
applicant still would not have had sufficient time-in-grade to 
retire as a Colonel.

The applicant felt the reason for his nonselection was due to 
having insufficient time to complete his advance degree and not 
his OPR and he was granted relief because of that reason.  
Since he was promoted to both Lt Colonel and Colonel with the 
OPR on file, there is no evidence that it caused his 
nonselection in 2004.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E.



In his response, the applicant reiterated his contentions and 
indicated he considered the Air Force evaluations to be 
factually incorrect on certain points.  

	a. He stated it was not reasonable for AFPC/DPSID to 
falsely state he failed to provide evidence.  It was factually 
incorrect to repeatedly assert throughout the advisory opinion 
that he only provided as evidence his own words, he provided no 
proof, he merely provided his own personal opinions and he 
provided absolutely no evidence.  Repeatedly and falsely stating 
that no evidence existed is unjust in that it might bias any 
reader into believing that he did not submit any evidence.  He 
requests the Board review the submitted records for relevance, 
consistency with his assertions, and credibility toward the 
facts in question.  

	b. Additionally, in an effort to characterize the effects of 
the injustice he suffered from the OPR, he asserted that he did 
not receive fair consideration during the PRF process due to 
the injustice.  Specifically, he stated, “had his 2003 OPR not 
included factual errors or reprisal, his record would have been 
more competitive and he may have received a Definitely Promote 
rating.”  It was not reasonable to conclude these statements 
constituted a request to alter the PRF.  However, multiple 
comments, entire paragraphs, and the DPSID concluding 
recommendation centered on the erroneous foundation presuming he 
requested alteration of the PRF to a Definitely Promote rating.  
DPSID’s opinion groups the lack of evidence relating to PRF 
changes and summarizes them as applying to the request to void 
the subject OPR as well.  Thus, the entire content of the DPSID 
recommendation paragraph is misleading and might unfairly bias 
the Board when considering the merits of the application.

	c. DPSOO's opinion appears to be based, at least in part, on 
the erroneous belief that he had previously argued in the 2005 
appeal that his record was not competitive.  Had he actually 
argued as such, their opinion might be valid, however, the 
evidence submitted substantiated that was not the case.  He 
strongly argued the competitiveness of his record.  This should 
not preclude the Board considering the requested remedy on his 
current appeal.

	d. It is difficult for him to fully describe the entire set 
of circumstances in existence in 2005 that prevented him from 
pursuing an IG complaint of reprisal in order to contest the 
OPR at the time.  If the Board feels this matter is relevant, 
he would ask for an opportunity to appear before the Board to 
interactively examine the facts, circumstances, and his 
perceptions in order to determine if the course he took was 
reasonable given the situation.  Circumstances led him to 
believe the pursuit of corrective action to the subject OPR 
might bring risk of reprisal, and was therefore not an 
available option.  He believes the evidence supports that 
this was a reasonable course of action and in the interest of 
justice the Board should find in his favor to consider the 
requested remedy.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit G.



1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.  

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We took 
careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission pursuant 
to Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 (10 USC § 1552) in 
support of his requests and the evidence of record.  The 
applicant’s contention that his contested OPR contains factual 
errors, his rater engaged in reprisal, and his sustained record 
of performance demonstrated he would have been selected during 
the CY04 promotion board except for the reprisal are duly noted; 
however, we do not find the evidence provided sufficient to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility.  We also note that the applicant filed 
two complaints with the IG; however, one complaint was a third 
party complaint and according to the SAF/IG case file, the 
applicant’s complaint did not allege reprisal.  While the 
applicant alleges that this OPR harmed his promotion 
opportunities he has not provided any evidence showing that the 
content of the OPR was the sole reason he was not selected for 
promotion by the CY04B Lt Colonel promotion board.  To the 
contrary, the evidence established indicates the applicant's 
records, including the contested OPR, were considered for 
promotion by the CY05A Lt Colonel and CY10C Colonel Selection 
Boards and he was selected for promotion in both instances.  The 
applicant has not provided evidence to persuade us to the 
contrary and we agree with the opinions and the 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.  
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.  

4.  The applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal.  
By policy, reprisal complaints must be filed within 60 days of 
the alleged incident or discovery to facilitate the IG’s 
investigation.  As mentioned above, we note the applicant filed 
two IG complaints; however, the available record does not 
substantiate that either of the complaints filed alleged 
reprisal and it appears no investigation for reprisal was done.  
Nevertheless, we reviewed the evidence of record to reach our 
own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred under 
the provisions of 10 USC § 1034.  We note the applicant’s 
contentions but based on our review of the evidence presented, 
we do not conclude that he has been the victim of reprisal.  

5.  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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 



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 
in Executive Session on 21 February 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603 and the authorities found in 10 USC Sections 1034 
and 1552:

			, Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-03871:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 August 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  IG Complaint dated 22 December 2009 (withdrawn).
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 September 2012.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AAFPC/DPSOO, dated 18 October 2012.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 December 2012.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Jan 2013, w/atch.


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-03171

    Original file (BC-2000-03171.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The IG investigation reported that five reasons had been cited for the applicant’s dismissal. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that the essence of the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not find the applicant’s complaint of reprisal to have been substantiated,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02704

    Original file (BC-2010-02704.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFRC/A1A recommends denial, indicating there is no basis to assume the applicant would have been selected for position vacancy promotion by the lieutenant colonel promotion board, or hired as an AGR. We note the applicant filed an IG complaint alleging, among other things, that members of his chain of command unfairly denied him the opportunity to apply for multiple AGR positions and damaged his reputation by providing negative references to potential employers in retaliation for his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01473

    Original file (BC-2012-01473.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, the applicant filed another request to the ERAB on 19 October 2010 requesting the CY2009C PRF be removed and he be provided SSB consideration. The new PRF resurrects the same performance comments from the voided OPR and resulted in the same effect as if the original OPR and PRF were never removed. The senior rater used the PRF to make an end-run around the OPR process after the ERAB decision to void the evaluator’s original referral OPR and PRF.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02043

    Original file (BC-2003-02043.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IG investigation reported that five reasons had been cited for her dismissal. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the essence of the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not find the applicant’s complaint of reprisal to have been substantiated, her record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05186

    Original file (BC 2013 05186.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05186 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 16 September 2012 through 26 June 2013, be filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her final OPR from the Joint Staff, corrected DMSM, or the correct version of her PRF were not timely submitted to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00323

    Original file (BC 2014 00323.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove his N-O PRF for the PO513A CSB and replace it with an updated version, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Once a file is accepted for record, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from the record. While the Board notes the applicant’s letter of support from the ACC/CC, we believe it would be inappropriate for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00206-1

    Original file (BC-2012-00206-1.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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). 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900453

    Original file (9900453.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-00453

    Original file (BC-1999-00453.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Available documentation reflects that: On 9 March 1997, the applicant filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF/IGQ) alleging the squadron commander reprised against him for a protected disclosure by removing him from his lieutenant colonel position in the squadron and reassigning him to a captain’s position in the group. Applicant’s complete statement, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. By letter dated 19 October 1999, applicant provided the results of his request for a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04108

    Original file (BC 2013 04108.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In an email dated 27 August 2012, the IO stated he was a witness in the CDI rather than a subject. In a letter dated 11 October 2012, the applicant received a LOR for having an unprofessional sexual relationship with another squadron commander. As a result of a complaint received from the husband of the FSS/CC that his wife was having an affair with the applicant while both were deployed; on 24 August 2012, the FSS/CC’s commander appointed an IO to investigate four specific allegations as...