ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01510

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for the period   5 Feb 99 through 4 Feb 00 be voided and removed from his records.

He be considered by special selection board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards as applicable.

__________________________________________________________________

RESUME OF CASE:

On 1 Sep 04, the AFBCMR considered and denied the requests from the applicant as stated above (Exhibit G).  In an 11-page letter with 27 attachments, the applicant requests a “reexamination” of his case by the Board because his complaints were not properly investigated.  The applicant contends he did not receive two change of reporting official (CRO) evaluations although he had at least 120 days of supervision from the closeout date of the previous report when his rater departed on a permanent change of station (PCS) move and again when he was reassigned PCS.  He provides a timeline of the closeout dates of OPRs he received and the dates of the PCS moves made by him and his rater.

The applicant states that the background violations of the complaints he made in an Inspector General (IG) complaint were not investigated.  He submits a copy of the original AF Form 102, “Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Complaint Registration” form he submitted and notes the following complaints about the IG process:

	  a.  Air Force Instructions were violated in that among other violations no appointment letter for a Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) Manager for the Wing was ever given to anyone for the time period of Jul 99-Jul 00, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.

	  b.  Proper safety nets for potential suicide victims were prevented from being initiated and empowered from the Wing staff level, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.

	  c.  A potential suicide victim was not properly screened and was not given the correct tools or aid to prevent his death, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.

	  d.  The chain of command was not available to agencies such as CISM Managers, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.

	  e.  The IG’s office only interviewed two of eight witnesses pertinent to his case—one of which was the one his complaint was against, yet no wrongdoing has been substantiated.  

The applicant references specific passages of the IG report of investigation (ROI) to support his claims.  He provides his interpretation and explanation of what is wrong with the ROI and why he should be granted the relief he has requested.

The applicant’s complete new submission is at Exhibit H.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

Insufficient relevant evidence has not been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Regarding his contested OPR, the applicant states he is not able to obtain the records essential to his case, specifically the records of two of his previous raters.  However, he has not provided any evidence of efforts on his part to obtain evidence or support from the raters such as their verification of the periods they served as his rater and if a CRO should have been accomplished.  We note that this Board is not an investigative body and that it is incumbent on every applicant to provide the evidence needed to support their case.  The bulk of the applicant’s current contentions center around his view that the Inspector General (IG) failed to adequately investigate the complaints he made.  As part of our review of his case, we obtained the unredacted versions of the IG reports in question.  We note that the applicant’s complaints were reviewed by various levels within the IG system.  In fact, it appears that his current request is the same as the complaint he filed with the DOD IG Special Inquiries regarding his dissatisfaction with the investigation of his complaints.  However, we find the applicant’s evidence is insufficient for us to come to a different conclusion than the IG regarding the complaints he filed.  In our view, the IG has sufficiently addressed the applicant’s complaints and it is not within the authority of this Board to request that the IG reopen its investigation.  Additionally, as previously stated, the applicant’s complaints have already been reviewed at different levels of the IG system, including the DOD IG.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to grant the relief the applicant is seeking.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 3 October 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit G.  Record of Proceeding, w/atchs, dated 7 Oct 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jun 05, w/atchs.