ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2008-01257 INDEX CODE:	111.01
	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1.	His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 15 April 2002 to 14 April 2003 be replaced with the provided reaccomplished report dated 23 August 2007.

2.	He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 2003 (CY03) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 24 July 2008, the Board considered and denied a previous appeal. For an accounting of the facts surrounding his previous request and the rationale of the Board's earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 26 December 2009, the applicant’s former commander submitted a letter endorsed by the former Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) requesting the Board reconsider the applicant’s request. The former commander stated the applicant’s OPR ending 14 April 2003 is invalid because the senior rater’s signature was forged and does not substantively reflect the applicant’s outstanding documented performance. His former commander stated that administrative errors resulted in an incomplete and incorrect OPR. The Numbered Air Force staff revealed that the original report was not signed by the senior rater. The former CSAF (applicant’s prior senior rater), acknowledges that the original OPR did not contain his signature.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a letter from his former commander endorsed by the CSAF.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states the applicant’s rater submitted a statement that the contested OPR was forged; asking the Board to stipulate that the former CSAF’s endorsement to the statement is his concurrence that his signature was in fact forged. Although it may be easily presumed the former CSAF’s signature means concurrence, forgery is a serious offense that should be investigated through proper channels. Unless the former CSAF provides a statement substantiating that his signature of the contested report was forged there is no evidence of an error or injustice.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit H.
DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states that based on the recommendation by DPSIDEP to deny the applicant’s request to substitute his OPR ending 14 April 2003, they stand by their original recommendation to deny the applicant’s request for SSB consideration.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit I.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states his former commander’s letter details the opinion of both generals that his OPR was not signed by them but was, in fact forged. The applicant finds it incredulous that AFPC would recommend disapproval because the former CSAF endorsed his former commander’s letter rather than being an original signatory to his own letter. The former CSAF’s endorsement of his former commander’s letter places the former CSAF on record as agreeing with and taking as his own all that preceded his signature in that letter. The applicant states it is highly imperious for AFPC to recommend denying the application because the former CSAF did not put his signature on a piece of paper in a manner pleasing to them. Regarding whether or not there should be an OSI investigation regarding the forgery of the former CSAF’s signature on an OPR, the applicant defers and recommends AFPC defer to the former CSAF’s judgment. In 2008, the former CSAF signed the first true original OPR for the applicant’s 2003 reporting period. His endorsement of his former commander’s memorandum to the AFBCMR should be sufficient to demonstrate his belief that his signature was forged, that the original OPR is unjust and unfair, and that the proper course of action is administrative correction to his record. Two general officers have stepped forward to correct his record; their official statements and their endorsement of the applicant’s position clearly demonstrate that the 2003 OPR was fraudulent.

His complete response is attached at Exhibit K.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action. After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of his appeal and the evidence of record, we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in the previous Board’s decision. In his previous appeal, the applicant states blank pre-signed OPR forms were used to process his report and some of his duties and responsibilities were omitted. Now the applicant argues the original OPR is not valid because the senior rater’s signature is forged. While the applicant provides a letter from his rater, endorsed by the former CSAF stating the signature on the original OPR is not his; we note the former CSAF’s comments in Section VII are essentially the same on both the original and proposed OPR. Even if we were to concede that the former CSAF signature was forged, it does not provide a basis to change the information contained in the body of the report. As previously stated by AFPC/DPSIDEP, the information he is requesting be added to his record was known and available to the evaluators at the time the report was written, and most importantly, through due diligence and by maintaining careful records, he should have discovered and taken steps to correct the omissions prior to the promotion board. As such, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence showing that the report was erroneous or technically flawed at the time it was prepared. In view of the above, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered an error or an injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

2.	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.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01257 in Executive Session on 9 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair, 
Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-01257 was considered:

Exhibit F.	Record of Proceedings, dated 12 Sep 08, w/exhibits. Exhibit G.	Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Dec 09 w/atchs.
Exhibit H.	Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 10 May 2010. Exhibit I.	Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 May 2010.
Exhibit J.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10. Exhibit K.	Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Jun 10. Exhibit L.	Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jul 10.