RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05327

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 2014 referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) be removed from his record.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on incomplete facts, his evaluators wrote a mediocre OPR.  Their reasons for doing so were reviewed and rejected by senior leadership who fully exonerated him.  His senior leadership has removed the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and have provided memorandums in support for removal of the OPR.  

He is seeking a position as an AFJROTC instructor and his chances of employment may be at risk due to the OPR.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 December 2015, the applicant retired in the grade of major (O-4).  He was credited with 15 years, 4 months and 7 days of active duty service this period.  He was also credited with 5 years, 3 months and 19 days of prior active duty service.   

According to the 55th Wing Commander’s (55 WG/CC) letter dated 25 June 2014, the applicant was not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) by the CY14 Lieutenant Colonel, Line of the Air Force (LAF), Central Selection Board (CSB).     

The applicant received a referral OPR for the reporting period of 12 October 2013 thru 11 October 2014.  The reason for the referral OPR was that he failed to meet professional standards, he was disrespectful to two lieutenant colonels (O-5) and failed to complete the family readiness plan as directed.   

According to the 55th Wing Inspector General Complaint Resolutions (55 WG/IGQ) memorandum dated 18 August 2015, the applicant raised 24 allegations of abuse of authority against his commander and the operations officer.  A Commander Directed Investigation (CDI) was conducted and the CDI concluded all parties could have behaved better and substantiated one of the 24 allegations.  The CDI substantiated the allegation that the applicant was made to stand at attention while being counseled in a conference room with the door open.   

The applicant provides a memorandum from the 55th Operations Group Commander (55 OG/CC) dated 15 October 2015 which requests the Board remove the applicant’s 11 October 2014 OPR.  The letter states after further investigation, he no longer agrees with the assertions on the OPR and that the offenses which led to the negative comments were misrepresented to him.  He allowed his commanders to exercise judgment in order to maintain good order and discipline; however, he would have non-concurred with the rating had he fully understood the background of the situation. He missed the mark in oversight of the applicant’s case which revolved around the applicant’s family.  When asked to review the applicant’s family situation, the chief of the medical staff recommended a long term deployment deferment.  His commander implemented a temporary deployment deferment while Air Combat Command (ACC) considered a more permanent deferment.  ACC did not recommend a deferment and his commander discontinued the deferment.  This situation caused an uncharacteristic response by the applicant that was driven by his family’s condition.  The applicant and his commander could have prevented or deescalated the heated discussion but both sides continued their nonproductive discussion for too long.  The CDI found disrespect from the applicant but also a lack of foresight and control by his commander.  The applicant had an excellent and dutiful 20 year career, most of it as a member of the 55th Wing.  With this correction, his record will again reflect his outstanding service and allow him to continue his service in the civilian sector.

The applicant provides a memorandum from the Director of Strategy, Plans and Programs, Pacific Air Forces (HQ PACAF/A5/8), dated 28 October 2015 which requests the AFBCMR support the applicant’s request that his 11 October 2014 OPR be removed from his record.  The letter states that he endorsed the OPR using the information available at the time.  However, months later, following a CDI, new information was discovered that changed the appropriateness of the comments and he no longer feels a “Does Not Meet Standards” rating is correct.  Based on the results of the CDI, he removed the LOR from the UIF and subsequently closed the UIF.  The CDI results and meetings with the additional rater and the applicant made it clear that the applicant’s squadron leadership made errors in judgment regarding the applicant’s family problems.  The CDI found leadership errors by the applicant’s commander and that the commander should have prevented the actions noted in the LOR and OPR.  It was made clear that the applicant was not primarily at fault.  Had this information been available, he would not have endorsed the OPR.  All involved agree that the applicant had a momentary loss of bearing.  However, his actions were not properly captured and should be removed from his record.  The unwarranted OPR should be removed to reflect the upstanding character he exhibited across his 20 year Air Force career.    

In a letter dated 12 November 2015, the 55th Mission Support Group Deputy Commander (55 OGD) requests the AFBCMR remove the 11 October 2014 OPR.  The applicant’s OPR became a matter of record before the CDI was completed.  

In a letter dated 6 June 2016, the AFBCMR informed the applicant that the AFBCMR is the highest administrative level of appeal in the Air Force.  As such, the applicant should exhaust all other available avenues of relief prior to seeking relief through the AFBCMR.  AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 4.7.3, states the AFBCMR requires that if an applicant has not exhausted all available effective administrative remedies, the application will be denied by the Board on that basis.  The applicant was requested to provide verification he had exhausted the administrative remedies as referenced in the Air Force evaluation or request his case be administratively closed until such time as he was able to do so.  If a response was not received within 30 days, the applicant’s case would be processed to the Board where it likely would be denied.  As of this date, no response has been received by the applicant.  

The applicant retired on 1 December 2015 and is therefore ineligible to apply to the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations, paragraph 10.1.4 which states, “Retired or separated personnel are not eligible to apply for correction through the ERAB; therefore, they must submit a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records, to the AFBCMR.” 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit D.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPS2PE recommends denial.  The applicant should exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief prior to seeking correction of their military records.  If the administrative appeal is not successful, the applicant may resubmit the DD Form 149 and the results of the ERAB administrative review to the AFBCMR.  

In accordance with AFI 36-2406, Air Force members must report any form of discrimination to their supervisors or commander.  If you file a complaint late in a reporting period or after an evaluation closes, it may appear that you complained to create doubts about the evaluation’s fairness and accuracy.   Air Force members must provide that an evaluator was biased and that the bias affected the person’s objectivity to a point that a fair and accurate evaluation was impossible.  Additionally, the ERAB was established to provide Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level.  If an evaluation cannot be corrected through the ERAB, an applicant’s second and last avenue of relief is via the AFBCMR.  The application and documentation provided does not reflect the applicant exhausted the administrative avenues of relief prior to requesting relief from the AFBCMR.

Under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, the AFBCMR is the highest level of administrative appeal within the Air Force.  The AFBCMR will not consider a case until all avenues of administrative relief have been exhausted.  DPS2PE recommends the applicant submit a new AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, with all required supporting documentation, through the vMPF/Evaluation appeals found under the Most Popular Applications.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPS2PE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 16 June 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We note AFPC/DPS2PE recommends denial indicating the applicant had not exhausted available administrative remedies by submitting his request for removal of the contested OPR to the ERAB; however, the applicant is no longer on active duty and thus is not eligible to submit an application to the ERAB in accordance with AFI 36-2406.  In view of this, we are persuaded the applicant has exhausted all available administrative remedies and his application is ripe for adjudication by this Board.  Having carefully reviewed the complete submission, to include the letters of support, and the CDI; we are persuaded the preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice to warrant granting the requested relief.  Furthermore, in view of the removal of the contested OPR, we also recommend the applicant be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY15A Lieutenant Colonel (Line of the Air Force) Central Selection Board.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.    

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

a.	 His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col), 
for the reporting period ending 11 October 2014 be void and removed from his records.

b.	 He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY15A Lieutenant Colonel, Line of the Air Force (LAF), Central Selection Board (CSB).  

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05327 in Executive Session on 6 April 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 November 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Commander Directed Investigation, dated
			  18 August 2015 (WITHDRAWN)
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPS2PE, dated 2 June 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 June 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR dated, 16 June 2016.  

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.