RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00436
		INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period 2 Apr 02 through 15 Aug 02 be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR places undue emphasis on an isolated incident and has been unfairly prejudicial to his career.

The Wing Commander relieved him of command based on incomplete information, miscommunication, and flawed legal advice.  By the time it was discovered that the allegations of misconduct against him were not supported by the facts, he had already been relieved of command.

In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of his written response to the referral OPR, numerous character references, a copy of his efforts to get support from his rating chain for his appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) and a copy of his failed appeal to the ERAB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty as a commissioned officer on  14 Mar 85.  He was progressively promoted up to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  With the exception of the contested referral OPR closing 15 Aug 02, the applicant’s OPRs have been rated as “meets standards.”

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant has an approved retirement effective 1 Oct 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The applicant contends that the contested OPR places undue emphasis on an isolated incident and has been unfairly prejudicial to his career.  Paragraph 1.3 of AFI 36-2406 provides guidance on what raters should consider in deciding to document adverse information.  The rater in this case decided the adverse information was important enough to document.  Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced the report; therefore, opinions outside the rating chain are not relevant.  In this case, the rater clearly states that it was the actions around the applicant’s mistake that caused it in his mind to be more than a “one mistake” incident.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Mar 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  We note that the applicant had a clear set of instructions to follow regarding the vice wing commander’s signature on the driving revocation form letters.  In his response to the referral OPR, he states that on several occasions the security forces under his command had found themselves running short or completely out of letters.  Yet, he does not indicate what practical steps were taken to remedy what appeared to be an ongoing problem, e.g., requesting an increase in the number of pre-signed letters or implementing a better monitoring system.  Unfortunately, the applicant made a deliberate and conscious decision to forge the vice wing commander’s signature on the letters, a direct contravention of established policy.  Based on the wing commander’s decision to relieve the applicant of command, it would appear he considered the applicant’s actions egregious.  Accordingly, it follows that the applicant’s conduct should be documented in his OPR.  The applicant opines that the contested OPR “places undo (sic) emphasis on an isolated incident and has been unfairly prejudicial” to his career.  However, he has failed to provide sufficient evidence or support that the actions taken in his case were unfair or unwarranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

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 Docket Number BC-2004-00436 in Executive Session on 29 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Mar 04.

                                   Panel Chair