RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01556 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His officer performance report (OPR) rendered for the period from 3 Dec 06 – 2 Dec 07 be removed from his record. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and a referral OPR for committing adultery with a female lieutenant and an inappropriate relationship with his deputy squadron commander’s wife; however, the other individuals involved in the incidents did not receive any adverse actions. The LOR and the referral OPR are now negatively impacting his career. He appealed the LOR, which has now been removed from his record. Also, in Jan 10, he petitioned the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) to void the contested report; however, his request was denied. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement summarizing the events surrounding the LOR and the contested report; a copy of his rebuttal package and additional supporting documentation. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant received a LOR and a referral OPR for adultery with a female lieutenant and for an inappropriate relationship with the deputy squadron commanders’ wife. He submitted a rebuttal to both the LOR and the referral OPR to further explain his relationship with the deputy squadron commander’s wife. The applicant’s OPR profile of the last ten reports follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 02 Dec 01 Meet Standards (MS) 02 Dec 02 MS 27 Jun 03 Training Report (TR) 02 Dec 03 MS 02 Dec 04 MS 02 Dec 05 MS 02 Dec 06 MS #02 Dec 07 MS 31 May 08 MS 22 May 09 MS # Contested Report ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial, stating, in part, the applicant has not shown a clear error or injustice. The applicant contends that the other individuals involved in the incidents received no adverse action; however, while he provides several character references, he offers no evidence that even suggests, much less substantiate that the others involved in the incidents received no adverse actions. Furthermore, whether or not there were inconsistencies with the types of punishment each individual may, or may not have received, the OPR is still accurate. The applicant did in fact receive a LOR for the incidents mentioned in the contested report. The complete AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that he did file an appeal through the ERAB. Further, in regard to “evidence” that the others named in his appeal did not receive any adverse action, he’s not sure what evidence he is suppose to produce. He states that it is a fact that they did not face any adverse actions, so that in itself is evidence. Beyond that, if these individuals had any adverse actions against them, AFPC did not produce them. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluation, in judging the merits of the case; however, 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. While the applicant believes that the other individuals involved in the incidents did not receive any adverse actions, he has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that this is so or if so, that it makes him the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, based on the available evidence, we conclude the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 issue(s) 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-2010-01556 in Executive Session on 26 January 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 1 Jun 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jul 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jul 10.