RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05797

						COUNSEL: 

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following documents be expunged from his record:

1.  His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 26 Mar 12.

2.  His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) covering the 
period 2 Jun 11 through 1 Jun 12.   


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unjustly issued a referral OPR based upon his having 
received an LOR, which itself was not justified.  The LOR was 
not justified because: 

1.  The rationale provided for issuing the LOR was for 
falsifying an official document (an AFTO781 used to document 
aircraft simulator use); however, the allegedly falsified 
document was never produced for the applicant to examine.  

2.  The commander did not direct a Commander Directed Inquiry 
(CDI) prior to issuing the LOR.  

3.  The likelihood the applicant lied is diminished, if not 
eliminated, by the lifetime of standards he has maintained and 
been recognized for.  

4.  The AFTO781 which the applicant is alleged to have falsified 
is itself not accurate because it shows simulator usage 
beginning and ending on whole hours, irrespective of the time 
the simulator was actually used.  He took between 15 and 20 
minutes to do all his requirements with dead time.  He may have 
cut some procedural corners, but at no time did he falsify a 
record.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
major (O-4) during the matter under review.  

On 26 Mar 12, the applicant’s squadron commander issued him an 
LOR.  The reason for taking this action was that on 23 Mar 12 
the applicant “falsified an official document, claiming (he) had 
completed specific quarterly training events required before 
being able to deploy on 26 Mar 12, when, in fact, (he) did not 
conduct the training as dictated by regulation.”

On 19 Jun 12, the applicant was issued a referral OPR cover the 
period 2 Jun 11 through 1 Jun 12 which included the statement 
“Issued LOR for falsification of legal documents.”  In addition, 
the applicant was rated on the OPR as “Does Not Meet Standards” 
in Block III, Performance Factors, Block IX.3, Professional 
Qualities, and Block IX.5, Judgment and Decisions.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, 
D, and E.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
expunge the applicant’s LOR, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information 
File (UIF) Program, states “Administer a counseling, admonition, 
or reprimand, verbally or in writing.  If written, the letter 
states:  What the member did or failed to do, citing specific 
incidents and their dates, what improvement is expected,” and 
“that further deviation may result in more severe action.”  
After careful review, the evidence presented revealed only minor 
discrepancies which have no bearing on the administrative action 
itself.  The discrepancies do not invalidate the commander’s 
action and authority to administer the LOR.  The proper 
procedures for administering an LOR were followed.

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

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have 
his referral OPR expunged from his record, indicating there is 
no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant claims 
his LOR is not based on credible evidence, and therefore, the 
referral OPR, which is based on his having received the LOR, is 
unjust.  The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not 
convinced there was an error or injustice and denied the 
applicant’s request.  AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation System, states evaluators are strongly encouraged to 
comment in performance reports on misconduct when adverse 
actions such as an LOR have been issued.  The applicant received 
a referral OPR for receiving an LOR for falsifying an official 
document.  The applicant provided no evidence within his case to 
show the referral comment on the OPR was inaccurate or unjust; 
therefore, the inclusion of the referral comment on the OPR was 
appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document.  
Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the applicant’s LOR, its 
mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance 
with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  
Furthermore, the applicant does not deny what transpired during 
the incident, rather makes an argument the evidence used against 
him was somehow lacking.  AFPC/DPSIM recommended denying the 
applicant’s request to expunge his LOR.  A final review of the 
contested OPR evaluation was accomplished by the additional 
rater and a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander 
served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure the 
report was given fair consideration in accordance with the 
established Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System.  Based upon 
the legal sufficiency of the LOR as rendered, and no evidence 
within the applicant’s file to indicate the LOR was removed, the 
mention of the LOR in the referral OPR was appropriate.  
Finally, Air Force policy is that an evaluation is accurate as 
written when it becomes a matter of record.  It is considered to 
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it was 
rendered.  To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is 
necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not 
only for support, but for clarification/explanation.  The 
applicant has not substantiated the contested OPR was not 
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge 
available at the time.  

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

AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The basis for the LOR and referral OPR 
is the allegation that before deploying, the applicant falsified 
an official document, claiming he had completed specific 
quarterly training events required to be completed before 
deployment when he, in fact, had not conducted the training 
dictated by regulation.  The applicant’s commander stated, in 
her 25 Mar 12 Memo for the Record, the applicant acknowledged to 
her that he never touched the controls of the simulator and did 
not “fly” the simulator.  In addition, the applicant “claimed 
that he knew he was not conducting the training as required by 
regulation, but was attempting to clean up his record to ensure 
availability for his deployment leaving on 26 Mar 12.”   In his 
own statement, the applicant acknowledged he did not “turn on 
sound and motion or fly the profile real-time, [but] felt that I 
had accomplished the events at a sufficient level that was in 
the best interest of the 91st Air Refueling Squadron so that I 
could be current for all events during my upcoming 
deployment…and not negatively affect mission requirements given 
the available time.”  This statement represents a full 
acknowledgement that he was trying to put the best spin on 
events to rationalize his failure.  All of the available 
evidence clearly establishes the applicant failed to accomplish 
the training as required by regulation (the basis listed in the 
LOR), and his completion of the AFTO781 was known by him to be a 
false statement.  The applicant did not just fail to accomplish 
the training required for deployment he attempted to thereafter 
“pencil-whip” the requirement and falsified a document in the 
process.  The LOR and the referral OPR that documents his 
misconduct are both legally sufficient, and there was no 
material error in the base for, or administration of, these 
actions.  Receipt of the LOR and referral OPR for the lack of 
integrity represented by this behavior did not constitute an 
overreaction or injustice.  The applicant has failed to prove 
any material error or injustice.  

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


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Through council, he takes exception to all three staff 
advisories which recommended denial.  Addressing the AFPC/DPSID 
advisory, he states he provided clear evidence he did not make a 
false statement, and that he performed the required maneuvers on 
the simulator.  In response to the AFPC/DPSIM advisory, he 
highlights what he calls “confusion surrounding his actions,” 
agrees his actions were unusual, but denies lying about what he 
did.  And, in response to the AFPC/JA advisory, he contends he 
was a dedicated and highly regarded officer taking steps he 
thought were needed to get ready for deployment.  Finally, he 
points out that the Board has the authority to correct 
punishments that are overzealous (Exhibit G).


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.  We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response to the advisory opinions, in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
of injustice.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contentions 
that the allegedly falsified document was not produced, a 
Commander Directed Inquiry (CDI) was not accomplished, the 
applicant had an excellent record prior to the incident, and the 
AFTO781 itself was not an accurate document, the fact that, as 
the commander stated in her 25 Mar 12 Memo for the Record, the 
applicant admitted he never touched the controls of the 
simulator, did not ‘fly’ the simulator at all, and knew he was 
not conducting the training as required, is in our view, a 
sufficient basis for the commander to have taken the actions she 
did.  While the applicant’s arguments are duly noted, we do not 
find the evidence presented sufficient for us to conclude that 
it would be reasonable to substitute our judgment for that of 
the commander who was there at the time, had all the appropriate 
information available to her, and had the full authority to make 
said determination.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence the 
applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, there was 
an abuse of discretionary authority, or the contested actions 
were disproportionate to the circumstances, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2013-05797 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05797 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 13 Feb 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Oct 14.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 22 Oct 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14.
Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 14.