RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04654 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) with a closeout date of 28 May 01 be removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His OPR should be removed from his records because he was not fully qualified as a chaplain nor did he attend the Basic Chaplain Course (BCC). The report violated the Air Force Chaplain Professional Development guidance and Military Equal Opportunity and Treatment. His chain of command did not adhere to the Air Force Instructions when they prepared his evaluation. His Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is 52R1, which translates to a chaplain in training. He received a referral OPR after only serving on active duty for 85 days. He was marked as “does not meet standards” in communications skills. Given his birth, English is his second language. AFI 36-2706 declares, “it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual or group because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. This includes discrimination based on the individual’s birthplace, ancestry, culture or the linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.” The linguistic characteristics of the majority of Korean born Americans, includes the same Korean accent that he possesses when he speaks English. Although he may have an accent, he graduated with two degrees from United States accredited programs. He was led to believe the referral report would eventually be removed from his records. He was naïve to believe his rater and additional rater when they told him he could overcome the poor rating. He believes it clearly shows discrimination and career damaging implications; therefore, he asks for consideration of this unjust treatment to be removed from his records. On 7 Jan 11, he sent a personal statement with letters of support from his chain of command. In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from the governing AFI, a copy of his referral OPR, a copy of the referral OPR letter, and copies of letters of support. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant requested administrative closure of his case on 6 Jul 11 in order to gather further documentation in support of his request. Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/EO forwards without recommendation. EO states that after a review of the EO IT system, there was no record of the applicant contacting the local EO office to discuss and/or file a complaint of discrimination. The EO complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant’s OPR reflects in Block 6, 85 days of supervision; however, they verified he had 150 days since he entered on active duty (EAD). DPSID notes that although 120 days is required to write a report, as little as 60 days is needed when writing a referral report in accordance with the governing regulations. The applicant mentions that his referral report violated Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) and Treatment Policy. However, he does not provide a copy of an MEO or Inspector General (IG) complaint that justifies the violations took place nor has it been confirmed or reviewed by credible officials that the comments were in violation of MEO policy; which states that it is unlawful to discriminate against an individual because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex. The applicant provides letters of support from his rater and additional rater; however, he has not provided a statement from the reviewer. In addition, the additional rater had concerns about being able to understand the applicant at the time the report was written as he admits in his letter of support. The governing regulation states that you must provide convincing documentation for your appeal. The willingness of evaluators to change a report is not enough. You must offer clear evidence that the original evaluation was unjust or wrong. The applicant has not provided documentation to substantiate the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 1 Sep 11, the applicant requested to reopen his case and provided additional documentation for consideration. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E and G. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. After reviewing the available evidence of record, we believe that substantial doubt has been established as to the fairness of the contested report and whether or not the report is an honest and accurate depiction of the applicant’s overall performance during the time period in question. Additionally, we note the strong support from the applicant’s chain of command recommending that the report be removed. As such, we believe any doubt regarding the fairness and accuracy of the report should be resolved in favor of the applicant. Therefore, in the interest of equity and justice, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report, AF Form 707B, rendered for the period 30 December 2000 through 28 May 2001 be declared void and removed from his records. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-04654 in Executive Session on 12 Oct 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/EO, dated 7 Feb 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 31 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jun 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 11. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Sep 11, w/atchs.