RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04148	COUNSEL:	NONE
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of
17 October 2009 thru 26 May 2010 be removed and/or replaced with an OPR that “Meets Standards.”

He receive supplement promotion board consideration.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He received the referral OPR while serving on active duty. His Reserve unit hired him with no break in service and received full disclosure of the incident that caused the referral OPR. It was his unit’s intent to hire him so that he could complete a minimum of 20 years of service. It was for this reason that his chain of command had all documentation of this incident stricken from his records with the exception of the referral OPR because it was believed that the referral OPR could not be removed or replaced. Furthermore, it was not expected that his 2010 referral OPR would negatively affect his 2015 promotion board. On 1 October 2015, he separated as a result of being twice passed over. This was not the intent of his chain of command at the time of the incident nor now. Given all the evidence of this incident has been purposely removed by the appropriate authority, he asks that the referral OPR also be removed and that a supplemental promotion board be granted.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, effective 28 June 2000, the applicant was released from the United States Air Force Academy Preparatory School, received an “Honorable” character of service, and was credited with 11 months and 8 days of active service. His reason for separation is reflected as “Enrollment in Service Academy.”

According to the applicant’s Personal Data Sheet, Reserve Officer Personnel Brief, on 2 June 2004, the applicant received his commission and entered active in the Regular Air Force.

The applicant received a referral OPR for the period of 17 October 2009 thru 26 May 2010 for receiving an Article 15.

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214, effective 1 March 2012, the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of captain, was transferred to the Air Force Reserve, and received a narrative reason of separation of “Reduction in Force.”

According to the applicant’s ARPC IMT 92, Appointment Order, dated
30 March 2012, the applicant was appointed into the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in the grade of Captain effective 2 March 2012.

According to Reserve Order CB-170, dated 18 September 2015, the applicant received an honorable discharged from all appointments in the United States Air Force effective 1 October 2015.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1K recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove/replace his 2010 OPR and to be reconsidered for promotion by a supplemental selection board. The applicant has not exhausted all reasonable administrative remedies. In this regard, the applicant had the opportunity to submit a request to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to have his Officer Performance Report (OPR) corrected or removed IAW AFI36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, at the time he received the referral OPR, and prior to being discharged.

By way of background, the applicant received a referral OPR in 2010 based on receiving an Article 15. He did not provide the required referral memorandum and rebuttal documents that is filed with the referral report and he did not submit a request to the ERAB to consider removal or replacement of referral OPR. His Personal Records Display Application (PRDA) is no longer accessible due to his mandatory separation from the AFR as a result of being twice deferred and he did not supply any documentation to reflect he submitted letters to the Officer Promotion Board President to provide information concerning his referral OPR. The applicant did not submit any supporting documentation validating what his unit’s intentions were. Additionally, AFPC should be the approval authority on the request for removal or replacement ofthe applicant’s OPR since the applicant was a Regular Air Force (RegAF) member at the time the referral report was completed.

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends denial. In this regard, the application was not submitted in a timely manner and it is worthy to note that the contested OPR has been a matter of record for over
6 years. The test to be applied is not merely whether the applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether through due diligence, he could or should have discovered the error. The applicant unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting this claim. He has waited 6 years to file this appeal and offered no justification for the extensive delay, as well as took no action on the claim before that. As a result of this very long delay, the Air Force no longer has documents on file (Base Personnel Information File, Unfavorable Information File, control roster, letter of reprimand, etc.), memories have either faded or are not available, and these factors seriously complicate any ability to determine the merits of the applicant’s request. In short, the Air Force asserts that the applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding a matter dating back
6 years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the factual merits of the applicant’s position.

The applicant contends that his chain of command had all documentation of the incident that is mentioned within his referral OPR stricken from his record; therefore, this report should also be removed or upgraded to reflect “Meets Standards.” However, the governing instructions states that, “… the Board will not consider nor approve requests to: Change an evaluator’s ratings or comments” and “Statements from the rating chain should cite important facts or circumstances that were unknown when the evaluators signed the report; detail the error or injustice; explain how and when it was discovered; include the correct information; relate to the contested reporting period; address the allegations and substantially challenge or disprove comments or ratings in the report.” The referral comment in Section IV states that, “… showed a lack of judgment during an alcohol- related incident for which he received an Article 15.” The governing instructions also states that raters ensure personnel they supervise receive performance feedback to improve performance and contributions to mission accomplishment. In deciding whether to record adverse information on the performance report, evaluators must consider the following: “The vast majority of Air Force personnel serve their entire career with honor and distinction; therefore, failure to document misconduct which reflects departure from the core values of the Air Force is a disservice to all personnel competing for promotion.” Additionally, evaluators must consider items listed below when assessing performance and potential and specifically mention them in evaluation reports when appropriate: Adverse information, impact of the misconduct on the Air Force mission, impact of the

misconduct on the Air Force institution, impact of the misconduct on, and its relationship to the ratees duties, grade, assignment and experience of the ratee, number of separate violations and frequency of the misconduct, consequences of the misconduct, other dissimilar acts of the misconduct during the report period, existence of unique, unusual or extenuating circumstances. DP2SPE does not believe that the applicant has provided sufficient, substantiating documentation or evidence to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered his view of events as he believes them to be true.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, 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 or clarification from all the rating officials on the contested evaluation. It is determined that the report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. They contend 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. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SPE evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 15 November 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.   Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

4.	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.

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-2015-04148 in Executive Session on 15 December 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 15, w/atch. Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 13 Oct 16, w/atchs. Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SPE, undated.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 16.
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.