Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2009-03818-2
Original file (BC-2009-03818-2.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied



d. The  DD  Form  2499,  Health  Care  Practitioner  Action 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-03818 

1.  The following documents be removed from her records: 
a. The  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  rendered  for 
the  periods  5  Dec  06  through  4  Dec  07  and  5 Dec  07  through 
8 Jul 08. 
b. The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  prepared  for 
the  Calendar  Year  2010D  (CY10D)  Lieutenant  Colonel  Nurse  Corps 
(NC) Central Selection Board (CSB). 
c. The  “Not  Qualified  for  Selective  Continuation”  letter 
that was in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) during the CY10D 
Lt Col (NC) CSB. 
Report, signed 17 Nov 09.   
2.  She be given consideration for promotion and continuation by 
a special selection board (SSB) for the CY10D Lt Col (NC) CSB. 
3.  The  applicant  requests  her  Mandatory  Separation  Date  (MSD) 
be  extended  to  afford  her  an  opportunity  to  be  continued  under 
the sanctuary provisions. 
The  applicant  amended  her  request  for  reconsideration  with  her 
12  Apr  12  letter  to  the  Board  to  include  the  above  mentioned 
On 26 Oct 10, a similar appeal was considered by the Board where 
the applicant requested  two referral reports, closing 4 Dec 07, 
and  8  Jul  08,  and  a  Letter  of  Reprimand  (LOR),  dated 
14 Feb 08, be  removed  from  her  record  and  her  record  was 
corrected to reflect the following: 
a.  The  comment,  "outcome-reduction  with  permanent  removal 
from  critical  care  or  inpatient  care  duties"  was  removed  from 
the  Section  IV,  Rater  Overall  Assessment,  of  the  OPR  rendered 
for the period, 5 Dec 07 through 8 Jul 08,  

b.  Her  record,  to  include  the  corrected  OPR,  was 
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a 
SSB  for  the  CY09D  Lieutenant  Colonel  Nurse  Corps  Central 
Selection  Board  and  any  subsequent  board  the  OPR  was  not  a 
matter of record. 
The  applicant  forwarded  multiple  requests  for  reconsideration, 
with  additional  documentation,  prior  to  receiving  the  Board’s 
final decision.  On 7 Apr 11, the applicant was advised of the 
Board’s findings and decision on her case and that based on the 
claims  in  her  additional  submissions,  the  Board  would  not  be 
able to consider those claims until the formal investigation by  
SAF/IG  was  completed.    For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and 
circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s  request  and  the 
rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record 
of Proceedings at Exhibit H. 
By  letters,  dated  7  and  21  Apr  11,  the  applicant  requests 
reconsideration of her appeal, contending that she was reprised 
against  by  her  former  wing  and  group  commanders.    In  addition, 
she  provided  a  copy  of  the  allegations  she  filed  against  her 
former  commanders  with  SAF/IG.    She  specifically  contends  the 
contested OPRs and PRF incorrectly state in Section IV that she 
underwent  Peer  Review  in  accordance  with  (IAW)  Air  Force 
Instruction  44-119,  Medical  Quality  Operations;  however,  proper 
guidelines were not followed in conducting her peer review. 
In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement;  email  correspondence;  her  SAF/IG  request  for 
investigation;  her  “New  Information”  package  presented  to 
AETC/CC, and other supporting documents. 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit I. 
On  17  Jan  12,  the  applicant  was  advised  that  based  on  the 
Board’s directive, her letter that met the CY10D promotion board 
was being replaced and that her corrected OSR would meet the SSB 
for  the  CY10D  Lt  Col  promotion  board  with  the  new  letter.    On 
31 Jan  12,  the  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency  (AFRBA)  Intake 
office  received  a  DD  Form  149,  requesting  removal  of  a 
memorandum,  dated  3  Dec  10,  addressed  to  the  CY10D  promotion 
In  Mar  12,  the  applicant  was  notified  by  SAF/IGS  that  the 
investigation  did  not  substantiate  her  allegations  of  reprisal 
and  dereliction  of  duty.    The  SAF/IG  reviewed  the  report  of 
investigation  and  approved  the  findings.    In  addition,  the 
Department  of  Defense  Inspector  General  (DoD/IG)  conducted  a 
thorough review of the report, found it adequately addressed the 
allegations, and concurred with its findings (Exhibit J). 
reconsideration.    In  addition,  she  requested  a  change  to  her 
records  to  afford  her  an  extension  of  her  mandatory  separation 
(Exhibit K, w/atchs).   















The applicant was nonselected by the CY09D and the CY10D Lt Col 
(NC) SSBs.   
On  29  Apr  12,  the  applicant  was  honorably  discharged  with  a 
reason for separation of non-selection, permanent promotion.   
On 3 May 12, the applicant was advised that based on conflicting 
applications  to  the  Board  her  requests  for  correction  of  her 
military  records  had  been  administratively  closed  until  she 
consolidated  her  requests  into  a  single  application.    The 
applicant advised the AFBCMR to proceed with her reconsideration 
package (Exhibit L). 
1.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  injustice.    After  a 
careful  review  of  the  application  and  the  available  evidence 
provided  in  support  of  the  appeal  under  our  authority  found  in 
10  USC  §  1552,  we  are  not  convinced  that  further  relief  is 
warranted  or  the  Board’s  earlier  corrections  should  be 
disturbed.    In  an  earlier  finding,  the  Board  thoroughly 
considered  the  available  evidence,  including  a  very  voluminous 
submission  by  the  applicant,  and  determined  the  referral 
comment, "outcome-reduction with permanent removal from critical 
care  or  inpatient  care  duties"  in  her  OPR  closing  8  Jul  08, 
should  be  removed  and  granted  her  SSB  consideration  for 
promotion to the grade of Lt Col.  However, she was not selected 
for promotion by the SSBs.  The applicant was later advised that 
her  additional  requests,  in  which  she  contended  that  she  was 
reprised  against  by  her  former  chain  of  command,  would  be 
considered  once  SAF/IG’s  review  was  completed.    The  SAF/IG 
completed  its  review  and  the  applicant’s  allegations  were  not 
substantiated.    While  the  applicant’s  submissions  suggest  that 
she was not afforded fair and objective evaluations, we believe 
the relief already provided by this Board has provided her full 
and fitting relief in this regard.  Moreover, the applicant has 
not  provided  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  that  her 
commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority,  that  their 
actions  were  acts  of  reprisal,  or  that  their  decisions  were 
arbitrary or capricious.  As such, we find no basis to determine 
their  evaluations  of  her  performance  are  an  inaccurate 
assessment of the applicant’s allegations.  In our opinion, the 
earlier  Board,  which  thoroughly  considered  the  applicant’s 
entire record in arriving at its decision that corrective action 
was  warranted,  is  reflective  of  considerable  reviews  by  senior 
Air  Force  officials  vested  and  charged  with  the  responsibility 
to  ensure  the  applicant  received  a  fair  and  impartial 
considerations, that she received due process in accordance with 
applicable  laws  and  policies,  and  the  DoD/IG  and  SAF/IG  agreed 
with the findings of the investigation.   
2.  The  Inspector  General  (IG)  has  investigated  the  applicant’s 
allegations that she has been the victim of reprisal and has not 
been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection 







Act (10 USC § 1034) and found that her allegations of reprisal 
and dereliction of duty by her commander were not substantiated.  
We have completed our own independent review under our authority 
found in 10 USC § 1034 and have determined the applicant has not 
established the administrative actions taken by her senior rater 
and  commander  were  in  retaliation  for  making  protected 
communications.    In  reaching  this  determination,  we  find  the 
evidence  of  record  establishes  the  actions  taken  against  her 
were reasonable and would still have occurred, regardless of her 
protected  communications;  and  she  has  submitted  insufficient 
evidence  to  substantiate  they  were  motivated  by  reprisal.  
Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above  and  based  on  substantial 
evidence,  we  find  no  basis  to  recommend  relief  beyond  that 
already granted by this Board.  
3.  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  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 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
in Executive Session on 3 January 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI  36-2603  and  the  authorities  found  in  10  USC  Sections  1034 
and 1552: 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  BC-2009-
Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, SAF/MRB Memorandum, and Record 
            of Proceedings, dated 7 Apr 11, w/atchs. 
Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 11, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit J.  SAF/IG Report, Mar 12 (withdrawn). 
    Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Apr 12, w/atchs. 
                                   Acting Panel Chair 

Exhibit L.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 May 12, w/atch. 




Similar Decisions

  • 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03871

    Original file (BC-2012-03871.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    They reiterated the SAF/IGQ case closure letter (22 Dec 09), para 3, stated the allegation that XXXXXXXXXX was found to be not substantiated. DPSID states they do not believe the applicant provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his allegation of two factual errors. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01553

    Original file (BC-2010-01553.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAMN notes no BCMR action is warranted for the OSB reflecting board certified “no” for the 1 Dec 09 promotion board because the applicant did not submit the AF Form 2096 prior to the convening of the board. ...

  • 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 | 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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02962

    Original file (BC-2006-02962.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02962 INDEX CODE: 131.03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 31 March 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2 June 2005 through 13 December 2005 be replaced with the submitted OPR, which reflects his award of the 2005...

  • 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-04795

    Original file (BC-2012-04795.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her record be corrected to reflect that she was selected for the position of Director, Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Management Office (REAMO) effective Jan 09. As to a violation of Title 10 USC 1034b, the applicant appears to have the opinion that she was the only qualified applicant and would have been selected but for reprisal by the Deputy AF/RE substantiated in the SAF/IGS ROI. AF/JAA states that the applicant was not the only AGR who was the top candidate for the Director, REAMO...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803385

    Original file (9803385.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, he has not received the report and the DOD IG has not provided a date when the report will be released. He is requesting that this medal be included for SSB consideration because of the actions of the USAF Academy and the resulting assignment to the SWC. Regarding the applicant’s request that the SWC/AE medal (Air Force Commendation Medal) be included in his records for consideration by the CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Board, it appears that the medal was awarded subsequent to the...

  • 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...