RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01081 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 1 Jan 10 through 19 Nov 10, be declared void and removed from his official records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His supervisor unfairly and inaccurately represented his work, professional qualities, etc. in the OPR in question in reprisal for filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint. The OPR is inconsistent with the verbiage in his Development Plan, his Field Grade Officer of the Quarter submission, and prior OPRs, and constitutes an illegal reprisal. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of an expanded statement, a letter from his Wing IG concerning his reprisal complaint, his rebuttal letter to the Wing IG, an excerpt from a Development Plan, an award nomination, and the OPR in question. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 Jul 10, the applicant informed his supervisor of his desire to go to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) to discuss concerns of mistreatment by the supervisor because of the applicant’s religious denominational background. The applicant further alleged that his supervisor responded by saying that he was going to remove him from his Senior Protestant Chaplain position and all supervisory responsibilities because he was not impressed with his supervisory abilities or his service as Senior Protestant Chaplain, and make sure he received a bad OPR. The applicant then discussed his concerns with the MEO office, and filed a complaint with his Wing IG against the supervisor alleging reprisal. On 15 Sep 10, the applicant requested withdrawal of his IG complaint. On or about 4 Nov 10, his supervisor notified him he was no longer the supervisor of his one subordinate captain. On 20 Dec 10, he received the contested OPR and, on 22 Dec 10, he asked to reverse his 15 Sep 10 request to withdraw his IG complaint because he was displeased with the OPR he received. On 13 Jan 11, he filed a new reprisal complaint with the IG against his supervisor, based upon his OPR and his removal as a supervisor. On 1 Mar 11, the Wing IG informed him that his reprisal case was being forwarded to HQ AETC/IG. The Wing IG report concluded “This case should be dismissed because there is no evidence of wrongdoing.” In an undated letter, the HQ AETC/IG notified the applicant that they had conducted a reprisal complaint analysis and found no evidence of military reprisal. On 16 Aug 11, the Department of Defense (DoD) IG notified the Air Force IG (SAF/IGQ) they had reviewed the Air Force Report of Investigation into the allegations of reprisal submitted by the applicant, and agreed the responsible management official did not reprise against him for making a protected communication. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error of injustice. The applicant provides the outcome of his investigation, which did not support a finding of religious discrimination or any violation of Air Force Equal Opportunity (EO) policy. The applicant also filed a separate IG complaint alleging reprisal by the rater for protected communications he made to the aforementioned EO office. The IG investigation found there was no evidence of military reprisal against the applicant on the part of the rater. There were no negative comments by the rating chain on the contested OPR referencing any poor performance by the applicant and the report was not a referral OPR. The applicant has not proven any error or injustice in the form of rater reprisal in the preparation or execution of this report. The report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the report is unjust or inaccurate as written. Based on a lack of any evidence provided by the applicant of either religious discrimination or military reprisal by the rater, there is no evidence the rater wrote a biased or unfair report based on those factors. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 20 Mar 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). _________________________________________________________________ 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 an injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt it’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 4. The applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal and has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034). We note the Inspector General investigated these allegations and concluded the applicant was not the victim of reprisal. Based upon our own independent review, we have determined the applicant has not established the contested OPR was rendered in retaliation for a protected communication. In reaching this determination, we note he has submitted no direct evidence of this reprisal motive, and we believe the contested OPR represents an accurate assessment of the applicant’s performance and potential during the matter under review. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, we find no basis exists upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-01081 in Executive Session on 26 Jun 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Mar 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Mar 12. Panel Chair