RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05019

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Air Force (AF) Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), 
rendered for the period 19 May 08 through 18 May 09, be declared 
void and removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The incident that prompted the referral report was dismissed in 
civil court.  The OPR was unjust and did not accurately reflect 
his performance during the period in question.  This referral 
report reflects poorly on his outstanding service before and 
after the incident.

In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and a copy of a character reference.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major (0-4).

The contested OPR was rendered upon the applicant for the period 
19 May 08 through 18 May 09.

The applicant’s OPR profile as major is as follows:

			PERIOD ENDING		OVERALL EVALUATION

			  18 May 08		Meets Standard (MS)
			 *18 May 09		Does Not MS
			  29 Jun 10		MS
			  19 Feb 11		MS
			  19 Feb 12		MS

*Referral Report
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  The applicant received the contested 
referral report based on a referral comment related to his 
receipt of a letter of reprimand (LOR) for being arrested for 
sleeping in a running vehicle in front of an open convenience 
establishment with an elevated blood alcohol content.

The applicant did file an appeal with the Evaluations Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB).  However, the ERAB was not persuaded the 
contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied his 
request.

In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Systems, evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in 
performance reports on misconduct that reflects a disregard of 
the law, whether civil law or the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ), or when adverse actions such as Article 15, 
Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement 
on the Control Roster have been taken.  The applicant’s rating 
chain chose to comment on the misconduct, which caused the 
report to be referred to the applicant for comments and 
consideration to the next evaluator.  In his rebuttal, the 
applicant took responsibility for his actions.  The additional 
rater considered the applicant's rebuttal comments and chose to 
maintain the referral report.  Furthermore, the applicant has 
provided no evidence to show that the referral comment on the 
OPR was in any way inaccurate or unjust; and the inclusion of 
the comment on the referral OPR was appropriate and within the 
evaluators' authority.

While the applicant alleges the contested OPR should be removed 
from his records because the civil court dismissed the case, he 
has not provided any evidence showing the civil case was 
dismissed.  Furthermore, a court dismissal of the civil charges 
is irrelevant since the comment in the OPR only documented the 
fact that applicant was "arrested," not that he was charged or 
found guilty.  Documenting his arrest does not invalidate the 
contested report.  

As for the supporting statement provided by the applicant, while 
individuals outside of the rating chain are entitled to their 
opinion of the applicant's duty performance and the events 
occurring around the time the OPR was rendered, they are not in 
a better position to evaluate the applicant’s duty performance 
than those who were assigned that responsibility.  
Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record, and is a 
representation of the rating chain's best judgment at the time 
it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is 
necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not 
only for support but, also for clarification/explanation.  The 
applicant has not provided any evidence of support from his 
rating chain.  Without such documentation, the appropriate 
conclusion is that the contested OPR is accurate as written, and 
was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air 
Force policies and procedures. 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice.  The applicant was not acquitted of the 
civil charges.  A determination was not made by the court on the 
merits as to whether the applicant committed the offenses he was 
charged.  Rather, charges were dismissed on a procedural ground 
that did not reach the applicant's guilt or innocence.  
Furthermore, as noted by AFPC/DPSID, the applicant admitted his 
wrongdoing and accepted responsibility for his actions in his 
response to the referral report.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 19 Apr 13, for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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 an 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, 
we are not persuaded by the evidence provided to recommend 
removal of the performance report in question.  Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

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-2012-05019 in Executive Session on 30 Jul 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 12, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPRC/DPSID, dated 5 Apr 13.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 16 Apr 13.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair










?