ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03453 INDEX CODE: 111.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30 January 2000 through 15 February 2001, be amended by correcting or deleting lines 8 and 9 in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment. Or in the alternative, the OPR be removed from his records. In the applicant’s rebuttal at Exhibit J, the applicant requests that his record be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel (Col) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2008A (CY08A) Col Central Selection Board (CSB). ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 17 June 2008. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. In a letter dated 24 December 2008, the applicant requests reconsideration. He states the error is obvious and the implications are enormously false regarding the OPR statement, “unprofessional relationships with enlisted personnel.” This implies that he had an unprofessional relationship with more than one enlisted individual. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states although the evidence submitted by the applicant indicates there was only one unprofessional relationship with an enlisted member, the evaluators may have been privy to information that was not made available to the board. Additionally, since the civilian’s spouse was an enlisted member, and the one who reported the inappropriate emails, it is possible the evaluators chose to use the plural verbiage to show that more than one enlisted member was affected by the unprofessional relationship, not to mention all the enlisted personnel who believed there was an appearance of unprofessional behavior. Unfortunately, DPSIDEP does not know the intent of the evaluators, since the applicant did not provide any statements from his evaluators. DPSIDEP is not convinced the OPR is inaccurate or unjust. The DPSIDEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states the conclusion reached by his commander to act on unsubstantiated evidence was in gross error. However, he respects and honors the 2 July 2008 recommendation from the AFBCMR that his commander did act within his scope and authority. Although his commander operated within his power to issue the referral OPR ending 15 February 2001, he did not have the authority to intentionally mislead, deceive or inaccurately document his military record in order to give the wrong impression regarding the facts discovered during the CDI. In the referral OPR, his commander deliberately embellished the circumstances three times in order to intensify the punishment of his career. For the past eight years, the exaggerated implications regarding his military record have been misinterpreted by wing commanders, squadron commanders, group commanders, promotion boards, dental development assignment teams and his supervisors. Unfortunately, his career can never be made whole from the additional damage already done by these designated superfluities. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit J. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After a careful reconsideration of his requests and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficient to warrant a revision of the Board’s earlier determination. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2007-03453 in Executive Session on 11 May 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, 2 July 2008, w/atchs. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 December 2008, w/atchs. Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 17 February 2009. Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 February 2009. Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 February 2009, w/atchs.