RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01432 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Air Force Commendation Medal with Three Oak Leaf Clusters (AFCM w/3OLCs) be placed in his officer selection record (OSR). (Administratively Corrected) 2. His officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period 4 May 99 through 3 May 00 be removed. 3. If the Board declines removing the report rendered for the period 4 May 99 through 3 May 00 from his record, he requests alternative relief that would allow him to write a letter to the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) explaining the reasons for the near duplicate of the OPR rendered for the period 4 May 00 through 21 Nov 00. (His request was administratively granted). 4. His corrected OSR be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY05A CSB. (Administratively Corrected). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not promoted by the CY05A CSB to lieutenant colonel because of the missing AFCM w/3OLCS from his record. When he transferred from active duty to the Air Force Reserve, he was not aware that he had received the award. His report for the period 4 May 99 through 3 May 00 has similar accomplishments and in some cases, nearly identical wording as his report closing 21 Nov 00. When his next report was due the 3 May 00 report was not a part of his record, so when he reviewed his record prior to the IPZ board, he was not aware of the report; had he found this error, he would have corrected it prior to his promotion board. Had Air Force officials been aware of its existence they would not have directed a report to be accomplished. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; copies of his officer data verification brief (DVB); the AFCM w/3OLCs decoration elements; performance reports, including the contested reports, and other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, while serving as a major, was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. He was considered and nonselected by the CY05A, CY06A, CY06C, CY07B, CY08B, CY09B, CYI0A, and the CY11A Lieutenant Colonel CSBs. After receiving the applicant’s application for evaluation, AFPC/DPSOO administratively corrected the applicant’s record and approved his request for consideration by SSB with inclusion of the AFCM w/3OLCs by the CY05A Lieutenant CSB Officer Selection Record and inclusion of a letter to the same board addressing his two near identical Officer Performance Reports. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C,D).. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of his request to remove the OPR, stating, in part, that there is no evidence that the contested report is inaccurate or unjust. The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, it was not for an evaluation appeal and was returned without action. They note, the applicant contends he has two nearly identical OPR's in his record and that the 3 May 00 OPR was not in his records when he was told by his supervisors that they needed information for his next OPR; however, the 3 May 00 OPR became a matter of record on 29 Jun 00, five months before the 21 Nov 00 OPR closed out. The applicant had the opportunity to review his record to make sure a report was not in there before the 21 Nov 00 report closed out. In addition, he was the one to provide the bullets to his rater and does not provide any statements from the rating chain affirming that the contested report was written in error or unjust. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. It appears that the 3 May 00 report was written correctly and the burden of proof is on the applicant to prove otherwise. The applicant provided two copies of the 21 Nov 00 OPR and states on the 4 May 00 OPR; the year 00 has been altered. However, this was a minor correction made by the Military Personnel Section (MPS). It is normal procedure for the MPS evaluation section to administratively correct a report when an error is discovered versus sending the report back to the unit for correction. In the applicant's case, it appears that the MPS discovered the error with the dates not flowing and made the correction to the applicants report accordingly. In addition, the applicant provided a memorandum attesting to his professional flying and personal skills; however, he does not provide a statement from anyone in the rating chain or any other pertinent credible officials. While other individuals are entitled to their opinions of the applicant's duty performance and the events occurring around the time the OPR was rendered, they do not believe they were in a better position to evaluate his duty performance than those who were specifically assigned that responsibility. Therefore, their opinions are not germane to his appeal. In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2401, the most effective evidence consists of statements from the evaluators who signed the report or from other individuals in the rating chain when the report was signed. However, statements from the evaluators during the contested period are conspicuously absent. Without the benefit of these statements, DPSID can only conclude the OPR is accurate as written. Additionally, the applicant stated he is convinced his rater's actions toward him and statements made to him prior to separating from active duty, indicate that his rater's personal feelings toward his separation led his rater to write inaccurate and unflattering statements about his performance on the OPR. However, the applicant has not provided proof of the allegations. In addition, the instruction states to not make statements you cannot support with evidence. Your personal opinions will not convince the Board to approve your application. Unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives of your evaluators or how or why your report turned out as it did, do not contribute to your case. You must provide factual, specific, and substantiated information that is from credible officials and based on firsthand observation or knowledge. To effectively challenge an OPR, 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 the rating chain on the contested OPR. Information from evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice from the Inspector General (IG) or Military Equal Opportunity is appropriate; however, it is not provided in this case. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. DPSID contends that once a report 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. He has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial for SSB consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY05A CSB. They base their determination on the recommendation by AFPC/DPSID to deny correction or removal of the applicant’s 3 May 00 report. In addition, they note that the applicant contends his supervisors at the Wing Weapons Flight told him that since he was separating they would not be accomplishing an OPR for him. He states the 3 May 00 OPR rendered while on extended active duty (EAD) was not in his record when he was asked by the gaining unit to provide data for his next OPR. He provided his primary rater the data, including his accomplishments from his previous unit, so those accomplishments could be used on his OPR closing 21 Nov 00 (rendered while on non-EAD). He believes the near identical OPRs in his OSR reflected an unfavorable connotation when his record met the CY05A CSB. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant claims his Deputy Operations Group Commander was in his chain of command and contends that the close-out date on the 21 Nov 00 was changed because the 3 May 00 report from his previous assignment was not in his records at the time the report was accomplished. He notes the reports he presented as evidence to support his case, has official markings as having been entered in his official records and asserts that when the report showed up at the Air Force Personnel Center, they saw the dates overlapped and changed the dates of the report. He points out that had he known of the report from the OSS, he would have done something immediately to fix it. None of his supervisors ever advised him that he had a duplicate/negative report in his records. He became aware of the report while accomplishing his pre-retirement records review. In addition, he notes with the new electronic system it is very difficult to see the order of the reports so it is easy to miss a report if you don’t know which report you are looking for. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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 agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant submits additional evidence to support his belief that the contested report was not in his record; however, the OPR notes that the contested report which closed-out on 3 May 00 was filed in his record as of 29 Jun 00. In addition, we note the applicant has been granted SSB consideration based on the missing AFCM, w/3OLCs, with a letter of explanation to the promotion board president. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we do not find relief beyond that already granted administratively is warranted. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-01432 in Executive Session on 7 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 30 Jun 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 21 Jul 11. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Nov 11.