RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04050 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 15 June 2007 thru 24 May 2008 be voided from his records. 2. The AF IMT 709, Promotion Recommendation Form, (PRF) for the Calendar Year 2008 Lieutenant Colonel promotion cycle be voided from his records. 3. The 2007 Field Grade Officer (FGO) of the Year Award be restored to his record. 4. He be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for time served in Japan. 5. His records be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The OPR ending 24 May 2008 did not adequately reflect his outstanding performance during the rated period. The OPR was drastically different from those he had received in the past. He has consistently been rated in the top 10% or higher. His raters were unduly influenced by the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) report and drafted a poor OPR. The squadron commander told him that the wing commander pressured him to change the OPR following finalization of the MEO report. During that same rating period and with knowledge of the complainant’s allegations, his commanders awarded him an Air Force Commendation Medal and the 2007 Field Grade Officer of the Year Award. Additionally, they recommended him for the 2008 Astronaut Board. Like the OPR, the PRF was influenced by the MEO report and did not correctly reflect his potential for promotion. He requests his records meet an SSB so that he may have a fresh opportunity to progress and serve his country. He was wrongly passed over by the CY09, CY10, and CY11 Promotion Boards. He was not presented with an award during his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) from Japan. The service he provided to his country while in Japan was not recognized with an award. It is unjust and unfair that the MEO report had the effect of erasing the commendable service he provided during that time. His commander told him he wrote a citation for an MSM with First Oak Leaf Cluster on his behalf. The award was disapproved because of the MEO investigation. The award should have been conferred and should have appeared in his records for the promotion board to consider. In support of his request, the applicant provides his counsel’s brief with attachments. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving as a Regular Air Force commissioned officer in the grade of Major (O-4) with an effective date of rank of 01 August 2004. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) and Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) are 01 June 1994. In response to his request for entitlement to the MSM for time served at Misawa Air Base Japan, Headquarters (HQ) AFPC/DPSIDRA, Air Force Recognitions Programs, by letter dated 15 December 2011, (Exhibit B) advised the applicant that after careful review of his claim they were returning this portion of his request without further action. Before submitting a DD Form 149 requesting a change to his military record, the applicant must go back to the original approval authority, HQ Pacific Air Forces (PACAF); and allow for administrative relief. In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, paragraph 3.3.8, the applicant must exhaust administrative channels for reconsideration of the MSM before utilizing the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR) process. Once a decision has been rendered by the decoration approval authority and the applicant believes an injustice still exists, only then can he resubmit a DD Form 149 with the approval authority’s final decision through the AFBCMR process. With regard to the applicant’s request for his 2007 Field Grade Officer of the Year Award to be restored to his record, AFPC/DPSIDRA states; The Field Grade Officer of the Year Award is not a Special Trophy or Air Force level award. Normally, that type of award, just like a quarterly award, is won at the local unit, group or wing etc. level. There is nothing actually filed in the member’s record to show that he/she won this type of award. Quarterly and annual awards that are won (not just nominated for) can possibly be mentioned in a member’s evaluation. Other than that, there are no documents filed in the military personnel record. Regarding his OPR for the period of 15 June 2007 thru 24 May 2008; the applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, 10 March 06; to request the OPR be voided from his records. The ERAB considered the request, however, they were not convinced the report was unjust or wrong, and denied the requested relief. The following is a resume of his last five OPR ratings commencing with the report closing on 14 June 2006. PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 14 Jun 2006 Meets Standards (MS) 14 Jun 2007 MS 24 May 2008 MS (Contested Report) 24 May 2009 MS 29 Apr 2010 MS ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states, the applicant contends that his OPR, rendered for the period of 15 June 2007 through 24 May 2008 and PRF for the CY08 Lieutenant Colonel promotion cycle were rendered unjustly because he received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) for an incident that was misconstrued as unprofessional correspondence. A subsequent MEO investigation revealed the allegations of sexual harassment made against the applicant were substantiated. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all members of the rating chain, not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from the rating chain of record on the contested evaluation. It appears the report was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. Based on lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant, and the administrative sufficiency pertaining to the MEO findings, they recommend that neither the OPR nor the PRF be voided from the applicant’s permanent record. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the reports are unjust or inaccurate as written. We defer consideration of the other portion of the applicant’s requests to the appropriate offices of primary responsibility. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states the applicant has four non-selections to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel by the CY08B (8Sep08), CY09B (8Jun09), CY10A (8Mar10), and CY11A (7Mar11) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSB. DPSOO further states that based on HQ AFPC/DPSID’s recommendation to deny removing the 24 May 2008 OPR and PRF, they recommend denial of the request for SSB consideration. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the reports are unjust or inaccurate as written. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 January 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice regarding his requests for removal from his record of the OPR rendered on him for the period 15 June 2007 through 24 May 2008, removal of the PRF rendered for the CY08 Lieutenant Colonel CSB and to be considered for promotion by SSB. Regarding the applicant’s request for reinstatement of his Squadron Field Grade Officer of the Year award, in our view the commander’s action was not arbitrary or capricious and was within his discretionary authority. Additionally, we note this type of award is not maintained in any official Air Force record. As such, we find no basis to act on this part of the applicant’s request. Additionally, regarding the applicant’s request for award of an MSM, we agree with the letter sent to him on 15 December 2011 advising him he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Should the applicant feel he is still the victim of error or injustice after exhausting his administrative remedies on this issue, he may reapply to the Board. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application BC-2011-04050 in Executive Session on 17 May 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 October 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDRA, dated 15 December 2011. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 7 December 2011. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 5 January 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 January 2012