ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00308-2

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request for correction of his officer performance report (OPR) for the reporting period ending 20 Jun 14.

He also requests he be promoted to the rank of colonel (O-6), with retroactive date of rank (DOR) of 1 Oct 15, and he receive the associated backpay.

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a lieutenant colonel (O-5) in the Air Force.  

On 1 Jun 17, the Board considered and denied his request for removal or amendment of the 20 Jun 14 OPR.  The applicant contended he never received feedback and, thus the feedback date should be removed from the OPR.  Further, the negative wording on the OPR was due to a commander directed investigation (CDI) conducted during another reporting period and was in reprisal.  The Board found no evidence that led them to believe the report was prepared for any reason other than to document the applicant’s performance. Other than the applicant’s own uncorroborated assertions, the Board found no evidence the evaluators abused their discretion or that the OPR was flawed or based on inappropriate considerations.  The applicant’s request to the evaluation report appeals board (ERAB) for correction of the OPR was denied prior to the AFBCMR’s consideration of his case.  

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 H. 

On 7 Apr 22, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request the contested OPR be corrected and that he be retroactively promoted to the rank of colonel, effective 1 Oct 15.  He contends the CDI report of investigation (ROI) included material errors.  The investigating officer (IO) stated in the ROI that the unit had not been productive when he assumed leadership and that his predecessor had an entirely different leadership style.  He and another witness attested his direction and leadership were the result of guidance from the Air Force Chaplain’s Office (AF/HCX).  While the change in leadership played a role in the complaint, his leadership style did not affect the unit’s climate.  The IO demonstrates in the ROI his leadership style was the direct result from higher headquarters.  He sought to change the environment of complacency and crafted his leadership style accordingly and was acting in accordance with the guidance given to him by AF/HCX.  

The IO’s analysis of the allegation that he disrespected a superior officer by stating [redacted] did not like him and that all Catholic priests hate women was untrue.  When the IO investigated the allegation, all but one of the witnesses disputed the claim and the superior officer who allegedly said this comment denied the comment was ever made.  The level of exaggeration from a disgruntled individual was an attempt to besmirch his character and reputation.  The allegation he failed to establish and maintain a healthy unit climate was improperly substantiated.  He had his integrity impugned and has been deprived of professional advancement in his career.  His performance before and after the period is a portrayal of his leadership and professionalism.  Numerous individuals have drafted character letters on his behalf.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit I.

On 11 Jun 14, a chaplain submitted a memorandum for record (MFR) complaint to AF/HCX regarding derogatory information concerning the applicant.  The complaint detailed events described by a master sergeant (E-7) that the applicant created a terrible place to work and that he described Catholic priests as homosexuals. 

The CDI ROI dated 22 Jul 14, shows an IO was appointed on 2 Jul 14 to conduct a CDI concerning allegations of the applicant’s leadership failure and disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer. The ROI includes the following allegations:

	Allegation 1: The applicant failed to establish and maintain a healthy unit climate. (SUBSTANTIATED). The IO stated after interviewing members and the applicant, it was clear the unit did not have a healthy climate.  As the leader, the applicant was responsible for the unhealthy climate.  A chaplain and a master sergeant testified they heard the applicant publicly berate or yell at members; however, other members testified they had not seen any such behavior or did not mention it at all.  The IO did not find any compelling evidence the applicant routinely berated or yelled at subordinates and such perceptions may have been a result of his intimidating physical appearance and the volume of his voice.  Unit members testified the applicant’s leadership style changed since the master sergeant spoke with the chaplain about his complaints and that the communication had been better.  Viewed charitably, it could have been an indication that despite the senior level direction, the applicant came to realize he may have over corrected in his efforts to increase the unit’s productivity.

	Allegation 2:  The applicant behaved himself with disrespect towards a superior commissioned officer by stating to a female chaplain that the Catholic priest did not like her and that all priests hate women.  (UNSUBSTANTIATED).  Two members testified the applicant characterized Catholic priests as pedophiles.  However, only the master sergeant testified the applicant made the comment.  In fact, the chaplain who he allegedly made the comment denied the applicant ever made the statement to her.  She also provided email exchanges with the Catholic priest that showed warmth and positivity between the two of them.  It was wholly incongruent with the depiction in the allegation. The IO found the master sergeant’s testimony was not compelling and the preponderance of the evidence suggested the applicant never made the comment.  	

On 5 Aug 14, the staff judge advocate found the CDI to be legally sufficient and recommended the appointing authority take no action against the applicant.  The totality of the evidence indicated the alleged misconduct could be addressed adequately and appropriately within the Chaplain Service.  

On 6 Aug 14, the appointing authority approved and concurred with the findings and conclusions of the IO.  The investigation was closed and forwarded to AF/HC.   

The applicant received a “Meets Standard” OPR for the reporting period 21 Jul 13 through 20 Jun 14.  However, the OPR includes comments to continue to develop the applicant’s skills, that growth areas for leadership were identified and that the applicant should be assigned under experienced supervision.  

The applicant’s records do not include any adverse information summary (AIS) for the substantiated CDI allegation.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

DAFPM 2021-36-03, Adverse Information for Total Force Officer Selection Boards, dated 14 Jan 21and Section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020, signed on 20 Dec 19, as codified in 10 U.S.C. § 615(a)(3) requires all adverse information to be filed in an officer’s master personnel records group and OSR for consideration by promotion boards.  The new policy removed the authority for WG/CCs or issuing authorities to direct removal of derogatory data from the OSR effective 1 Mar 20, as previously permissible in AFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, and AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records.  Adverse information requiring mandatory filing in the officer selection record (OSR) and master personnel records group includes but is not limited to LORs and any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an investigation or inquiry.  Only the AFBCMR may remove the adverse information from the officer’s record.  

10 U.S.C. § 618(b). The Secretary of the Military Department will submit the selection board report to the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) for transmittal to the President for approval or disapproval. If the authority of the President to approve or disapprove the report of a selection board is delegated to the SecDef, it may not be redelegated except to an official in the Office of SecDef.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board finds the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof to find any error or injustice in the CDI ROI, the substantiated allegation or the applicant’s OPR ending 24 Jun 14. Since the Board does not recommend correction of the contested OPR, the Board does not recommend promotion consideration to the rank of colonel.  Moreover, this Board which serves on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force is without authority to direct a promotion to the rank of colonel per 10 U.S.C. § 618(b).  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.
	
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-2016-00308-2 in Executive Session on 18 Nov 22:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

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

Exhibit H:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-G, dated 22 Nov 17.
Exhibit I:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 7 Apr 22.

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.