ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04980-2

XXX X XXXXXX 	COUNSEL: XXX  XXXXXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request to void and remove the referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period of 16 May 13 through 30 Jun 14 from his records and award him a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) decoration.

The applicant also requests he be retroactively promoted to Colonel (O-6); or in the alternative, allow his record to be review by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

RESUME OF THE CASE	

The applicant is an active duty lieutenant colonel (O-5).  On 6 Apr 17, the Board considered and denied his request to void and remove his referral OPR and grant him a permanent change of station decoration.  The Board found there was no evidence presented that the supervisor abused his authority by issuing the referral performance report or that the performance report was based on inappropriate consideration.  The Board also concluded there was no error or injustice with regard to the applicant’s request for a PCS decoration and denied that portion of his request.  The Board also considered the applicant’s contention that he was the victim of reprisal.  The evidence the applicant submitted was insufficient to warrant a formal investigation by the Inspector General, accordingly, the seven allegations raised by the applicant were dismissed.  The Board found the applicant was not the victim of reprisal and found he had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I.

On 24 Jul 19, through counsel, the applicant submitted a 24-page brief requesting reconsideration of his request.  He recounted the events surrounding the Commander Directed Investigation (CDI), which led to his commander issuing him a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and referral OPR.  He again contended the CDI, of which the LOR and subsequent referral OPR were based, were issued contrary to Air Force policy and legally insufficient.  He contended his wing commander ostracized him and was not impartial when issuing the referral performance report.  The applicant further contended the LOR was issued in violation of his due process rights.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit J.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denying the application. The applicant was issued an LOR and was removed from his position as result of a CDI that concluded the organizational climate was hostile and its morale was low.  The applicant then received a referral OPR.  He rebutted the referral OPR alleging the CDI was rushed, selective and contained 24 false statements with unsupported conclusions, thereby rendering the CDI legally defective.  The entire rating chain considered the rebuttal, to include a general officer; however, the OPR was upheld. While unable to determine the legitimacy of the CDI, based on the decision to document substandard behavior, there does not appear to be an error or injustice.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit L.

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denying the application.  The Air Force Military Evaluations Program Manager has not recommended removal of the referral OPR; therefore, the referral still exists.  The applicant should not be granted an SSB.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit M.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 12 Mar 20 for comment (Exhibit N), and the applicant replied on 10 Apr 20.  In his response, through counsel, the applicant contended the Board should disregard the advisory opinions as they failed to acknowledge the newly presented evidence or address any of the arguments provided.  The advisory writer continues to rely on a CDI whose legitimacy they are unwilling to verify.  Counsel reiterates the applicant’s contentions from his original brief and requests the Board grant relief.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit O.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  In earlier findings, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action.  After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of this appeal, we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in the previous decision.  Therefore, we do not find the additional evidence presented is sufficient to warrant the relief sought on that basis.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request.

The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2015-04980-2 in Executive Session on 12 and 15 May 20:

Panel Chair 
Panel Member
Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit I:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, dated 6 Apr 17.
Exhibit J:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 24 Jul 19.
Exhibit K:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit L:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 10 Feb 20. 
Exhibit M:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 11 Mar 20. 
Exhibit N:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 12 Mar 20.
Exhibit O:	Applicant’s response, dated 10 Apr 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.