RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01149 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The following documents be expunged from his record: 

 

1. The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 7 Feb 12. 

 

2. The Unfavorable Information File (UIF) created as a result of 
the 7 Feb 12 LOR. 

 

3. The Referral AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), 
for the period of 24 May 11 through 5 Apr 12. 

 

Further, he requests consideration for a Special Selection Board 
(SSB), for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). 

 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His LOR, UIF, and referral OPR should never have been established 
because he was not willfully disobeying a direct order [to not 
consume alcohol in the CENTCOM AOR]; instead, he was mistakenly 
following the past practice of his predecessor. He believed he 
was authorized to consume alcohol, by an exception stated in 
General Order 1B, during “counterintelligence operations,” which 
was one of the missions his unit performed. He believed that to 
mean the unit was allowed to consume small amounts of alcohol 
during off-base meetings with local intelligence sources to build 
rapport. He was first informed his unit had a waiver to General 
Order 1 during his change of command brief with the outgoing 
commander. The outgoing commander showed him a document on 
official letterhead, which he believed to be a valid waiver, and 
did not question its validity. Upon further reflection, he 
thought the outgoing commander’s policy of two alcoholic drinks 
was too lenient and reduced his unit’s consumption to one drink 
per “source meet.” The applicant later became the subject of an 
investigation when photographs of him, and members of his unit, 
consuming alcohol were discovered on a government computer. The 
applicant admits he drank alcohol, and allowed subordinate members 
of his unit to do the same, but only did so under what he believed 
to be previously approved circumstances. 

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

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 12 Feb 99, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

 

On 7 Feb 12, according to information provided by the applicant, 
he received an LOR for violating CENTCOM General Order 1, 
(consuming alcohol), and allowing members of his command to 
consume alcohol. The applicant submitted statements on his own 
behalf and the decision to administer the LOR and place it in a 
UIF was upheld on 16 Feb 12. 

 

On 8 Jun 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the referral 
OPR for the period of 24 May 11 through 5 Apr 12. 

 

On 17 Jul 13, the applicant was informed he was considered, but 
not selected, for promotion by the CY13A Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) 
Central Selection Board (CSB). 

 

On 31 Jul 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
retired, effective 1 Aug 14, and furnished an honorable discharge, 
and was credited with 15 years, 5 months, and 19 days of active 
service. 

 

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 does not provide a position whether the actions of the 
applicant’s commander constitute an injustice, but does recommend 
denial indicating there is no evidence of an error in the 
processing the applicant’s LOR and UIF. After careful review, it 
was determined the evidence presented regarding the LOR dated 
7 Feb 12 was completed properly in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program. The applicant had 
three duty days to submit rebuttal documents for consideration by 
the initiator and his written acknowledgment and rebuttal 
documents were considered by the initiator. Ultimately, the 
initiator elected to uphold the LOR and establish a UIF. The AF 
IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Action, is the 
document used to refer the LOR for file in the UIF. Since there 
was no AF IMT 1058 provided, we cannot determine if it was 
accomplished within AFI guidance. 

 

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

 


AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating no evidence of an error or 
injustice with regards to the applicant’s referral OPR. The 
applicant received an LOR for actions which were completely within 
his control. It was ultimately the applicant's responsibility to 
consistently demonstrate integrity and trustworthiness. This 
office concurs with the AFPC/DPSIM assessment to deny relief to 
remove the LOR. Further, we also observed the applicant has not 
demonstrated any evidence, within his case, of an error or 
injustice in the legal sufficiency of the LOR, and the referral 
OPR which comments upon it. Based upon the legal sufficiency of 
the LOR as rendered, and no evidence that the punishment was ever 
removed, we find that its mention in the applicant's contested OPR 
was appropriate, and as such there is no basis to which we can 
support removal of the contested OPR. 

 

An OPR is considered accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent 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 failed to provide 
any information/support from any rating official on the contested 
OPR. It is determined the referral OPR was accomplished in direct 
accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. 
Once an OPR is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the 
contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual's 
record. The burden of proof is on the applicant; the applicant 
has not substantiated that 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 no evidence of an error or 
injustice This office agrees with the other advisory opinions [to 
deny relief] and only provide more details regarding the 
applicant’s claims he misinterpreted the Air Force policy 
regarding drinking of alcoholic beverages in Iraq, and that he 
relied in part on a policy instituted by his predecessor as 
commander. Neither of these arguments constitutes a defense to 
the allegations he both used alcohol himself and allowed the use 
by others under his command. The applicant had an obligation to 
independently determine what the rules/policies in effect were, 
and to carry out those rules accordingly. He could not rely on 
the policy of a predecessor commander, particularly when the 
policy was highly questionable. The policies set forth in General 
Order 1 were clear regarding the consumption of alcohol; neither 
applicant nor his subordinates qualified for the limited exception 
to the order. Moreover, his claim that he misinterpreted such a 
clear rule is simply not credible. We concur the applicant has 
failed to articulate any error or injustice, and that the 
application should be denied. 

 

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

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

After a thirty-day extension request (Exhibit G), the applicant 
refutes the position of the Air Force OPRs and contends the OPRs 
do not understand the complexities of his circumstances. 
Specifically, he contends the nature of the deployed 
counterintelligence mission subjected him to operating outside 
normal standards applied to other airmen. Further, he contends it 
is reasonable to believe following the same procedures (to include 
verbal and written guidance) of his predecessor is acceptable and 
would not subject him to disciplinary actions for doing something 
previously accepted by others; he was also responsible for 
obtaining waivers for alcohol for others on future occasions. He 
inquires if the OPRs place so much trust in those closest to him, 
in evaluating his performance; he wonders why it is not reasonable 
for him to trust his predecessor. Finally, he is adamant his 
integrity and trustworthiness are above reproach and he has been 
unjustly treated throughout this entire process (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 an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his 
rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we 
agree with the opinion and recommendation 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. The board acknowledged the operating 
environment and the mission the applicant was entrusted to do, 
however, we find the evidence presented was not sufficient to 
demonstrate an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, 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-2014-01149 in Executive Session on 28 Jul 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-01149 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 14, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 14 May 14. 

Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 18 Apr 14. 

Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 6 May 15. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 15. 

Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Jun 15. 

Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jul 15, w/atchs.