RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04117 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 14 July 2011 through 1 February 2012, be declared void and removed from his record. His Joint Credit Departure Reason Code be changed from “Q” Early reassignment due to suspension from duty (no credit) to “S” Early reassignment for hardship, humanitarian, compassionate or medical reasons, without SECDEF waiver, and with 18.4 months of accrued credit. He be awarded a Joint Meritorious Service Medal (JMSM) for his service in Berlin. He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 2012B (CY12B) Below-the-Promotion Zone (BTZ) and Calendar Year 2013C (CY13C) In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His leadership failed to recognize the required medical attention he needed when he indicated he had a problem. The Air Force does not have an effective program that educates leaders and airman about alcoholism. His rating chain incorrectly attributed a decline in performance to poor professional qualities rather than to the symptoms of a debilitating disease of alcoholism. When he requested medical attention, he was informed that he would not be punished and his reassignment would be treated as a medical situation. Although, his leadership determined his lack of performance did not merit a Letter of Counseling (LOC), Unfavorable Information File (UIF), or a Letter Reprimand (LOR), he received a referral OPR, refusal of 18.4 months joint credit for his position held, and was denied an end-of-tour award, which is typically a JMSM. His OPR was not written objectively and it contains significant, contradictory errors. As such, inadequate and erroneous Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) medical policy, education and leadership preparation contributed directly to the aforementioned developments. He should have be awarded an end-of-tour JMSM for serving 18 months as a United States Defense Attaché Office (USDAO) Berlin Assistant Air Attaché; however, it was disallowed for reasons relevant to the problems indicated in his contested OPR. His command initiated an AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, to the P0613C board, which reflects an overall promotion recommendation to colonel. However, he is confident that he was not promoted due to the contested OPR in his records. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 27 May 1992. On July 2008, the applicant was promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O5). On 26 January 2012, the applicant was diagnosed as alcohol dependent by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program. On 10 May 2012, a commander directed AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col) was rendered for the period 14 July 2011 thru 1 February 2012, and was referred to the applicant due to the rating and comments. The applicant’s over consumption of alcohol resulted in degraded judgment and performance. Specifically, his excessive drinking at the Marine Corps Ball resulted in negative comments from senior officials which reflected poorly on USDAO Berlin. In addition, he failed to follow DIA regulation which mandates reporting non-official contact with foreign nationals. Also, he lost accountability of government property. On 17 May 2012, the applicant appealed the referred OPR, indicating that it is quantitatively and qualitatively flawed. Specifically, he was not asked to provide input, he was geographically separated from raters, a feedback session was never held, and there are omissions of significant and materially relevant accomplishments. His OPR infers he was removed from his post for “poor judgment” and failing “to adhere to standards”; however, he had an undiagnosed medical condition which was the root cause of the decline in his work performance. An AF Form 709, was initiated with an overall “Do Not Promote” recommendation to the P0612B board. Specifically, the applicant was not recommended for promotion below the zone due to his demonstration of poor judgment, failure to adhere to standards, and removal from duty. On 21 March 2013, the applicant initiated an AF IMT 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, for the removal of the contested OPR and requested supplemental promotion consideration to colonel by the P0612B cycle/board. On 26 August 2013, the applicant was notified the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) considered his application and was not convinced the original report was unjust or wrong, and denied his requested relief. According to AFPC/DPSOO, the applicant received two non-selections to the grade of colonel by the CY13C (4 Nov 13) Colonel IPZ CSB and CY14C (10 Nov 14) Colonel CSB. On 31 March 2015, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired effective 1 April 2015, for sufficient service for retirement. He was credited with 22 years, 10 months, and 4 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested report. Based on lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant, his report should not be voided from his permanent record. The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate as written. He has not provided sufficient or significant evidence to prove his assertion that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly. He has merely offered his opinion of events and of others outside the rating chain in the light that is most beneficial to him. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. Furthermore, statements from any of the evaluators during the contested period are conspicuously absent. To effectively and successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain; not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide this necessary information/support from any rating official on the contested OPR. Without benefit of these statements, and based on the evidence provided, it is concluded that the OPR is accurate as written and accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his Joint Departure Reason from “Q” to “S”. The “Q” designation is correct given the reasons for his joint duty removal. In January 2012, SAF, International Affairs requested the applicant be immediately reassigned from his position, under the USAF Return to Service program as he no longer met the criteria to serve in the position as an Assistant Air Attaché (A/AIRA). Subsequently, he was given a referral OPR and was removed as the A/AIRA by DIA/DR. Based on these actions, and in accordance with DoDI 1300.19, DoD Joint Officer Management Program, the applicant was given a “Q” code, which resulted in any joint credit he had accrued to be stripped. The DoDI further states that an officer can be removed early from a joint position without a waiver when “suspended from duty.” Based on the fact that the applicant was requested to be reassigned from his position and the fact that a referral OPR was rendered that is now an official part of his selection record, the “Q” code is appropriate. As such, an “S” code is not appropriate as the move was an adverse action based on the request by DIA/DR and the referral report. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be awarded the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM). Although the applicant is requesting award of the JMSM, it is believed he is actually requesting award of the DMSM. The DMSM is awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense to any active duty member of the United States Armed Forces who, while serving in a joint activity, distinguished himself or herself by non-combat meritorious achievement or service. The meritorious service is generally for a period of time greater than 12 months and encompassing an individual’s entire joint assignment. Furthermore, no Defense/Joint decoration shall be awarded or presented to any service member whose entire service during or after the time of the distinguished act, achievement, or meritorious service has not been honorable. After a thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record, verification could not be made for award of the DMSM. Also it appears the applicant’s entire service during or after the award period in which he is requesting a joint service award was not honorable. In this case, the applicant needs to submit his request to the Department of Defense for relief as the Department of Defense has jurisdiction over joint decorations. Moreover, in order to reasonably consider the applicant’s request, he will need to submit a recommendation from someone with firsthand knowledge of the act/achievement preferably someone within the applicant’s chain of command at the time of the act/achievement, a proposed citation, and eyewitness statements. Furthermore, the applicant would have to obtain relief from the board on the additional issues in his request in order to be able to be considered for a Joint Service decoration. To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DoDM 1348.33, the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. Based on the recommended denials of the other Air Force experts, SSB consideration is not recommended. Furthermore, the applicant’s Joint Departure Reason designation “Q” code is not reflected in his Officer Selection Brief or his Officer Selection Record, as such, this is not a basis for SSB consideration. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit F. The BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant recommends approval of the applicant’s request for his contested OPR to be declared void and removed from his records, as well as, be granted SSB consideration by the CY12B BTZ and CY13C IPZ Colonel CSBs. Regrettably, a change in the joint credit departure reason code cannot be recommended unless specific evidence is revealed which indicates the current specified code was inaccurately applied. Care must be taken when examining the merits of this case given the tenor throughout the application that those struggling with alcohol dependence do not have control over their behavior and therefore cannot be held accountable for their conduct. Granting the applicant’s request based on this rationale could create an unintended precedent such that anyone punished for behavior associated with alcohol use could appeal with a defense negating the entire mens rea, a justification typically reserved for an insanity defense in criminal proceedings. Therefore, examination of this case was applied through the lens of the disease model of alcohol dependence in the context of relevant guidance available to the applicant’s leadership during the second half of 2011. Specifically, the applicant contends his leadership failed to identify his condition and obtain appropriate treatment thereafter. The opinion is rendered with the familiarization of the processes and procedures in place for identifying and evaluating service members suspected to be at risk for alcohol use disorders. Alcohol dependent individuals show poor insight into their illness and, when left untreated, the progression of this disease worsens psychosocial impairments. A significant crisis, or “rock bottom”, often serves as the catalyst for an alcohol dependent individual to self-refer for help. Therefore, in order to prevent further disease progression it is vital for Air Force leaders to take action when they suspect a troop may suffer from an alcohol use disorder. Two sources of guidance in effect at the time of the applicant’s reported degradations in work performance must be applied to this case. Specifically, the 1997 version and incorporated changes on 11 January 1999 of DoD Directive 1010.4, Drug and Alcohol Abuse by DoD Personnel, indicates that military personnel who abuse alcohol should be counseled and provided treatment and/or rehabilitation. Furthermore, AFI 44-121, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program, dated 11 April 2011, instructs commanders to provide sufficient incentives to encourage members to seek help for problems with alcohol without fear of negative consequences and to refer all service members for assessment when substance use is suspected to be a contributing factor in any incident. Commanders who fail to comply with this requirement place members at increased risk for developing severe substance abuse problems and jeopardize this mission. In the applicant’s case, statements provided to mental health staff by command at the time of the applicant’s alcohol assessment indicate that multiple incidents had occurred before a referral to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment (ADAPT) Program was initiated. In at least one case the applicant was reported to have lied to the commander about his alcohol consumption and the commander knew the statement was untrue. Despite numerous warning signs the applicant’s condition was left to deteriorate until he was enrolled in the ADAPT Program at the end of January 2012. A commander is responsible for all personnel/administrative actions pertaining to clients involved in the ADAPT Program and the application of administrative restrictions should be based on the establishment of a UIF or control roster resulting from the member’s unacceptable behavior and not solely based on their involvement in the ADAPT Program. In this case, a referral OPR serves as the only official documentation of the applicant’s behavior. It is concerning that this documentation came on the heels of a referral for treatment and subsequent transfer to an inpatient unit. Furthermore, the overconsumption of alcohol leading to worsened performance was the primary justification for the applicant’s referral OPR which is not only an expected consequence of an untreated alcohol use disorder, but also serves as evidence that his leadership was aware of the applicant’s condition and failed to take the required proper course of action. The requisite evaluation for an alcohol use disorder should have been triggered within seven days of the first alcohol-related incidents before ultimately being sent for an alcohol use assessment and reassigned. Specifically, after coordination with the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), unit commanders will direct drug testing within 24 hours of suspected alcohol-related misconduct incidents, episodes of aberrant or bizarre behavior, or where there is reasonable suspicion of drug use and the member refuses to provide consent for testing. Commanders are also encouraged to ensure that a Blood Alcohol Test (BAT) is taken as soon after the incident as possible to determine the level and intensity of alcohol involvement. The unit commander contacts the installation’s ADAPT staff within seven (7) calendar days of the incident to initiate the assessment process. Information gleaned regarding the applicant’s performance following inpatient treatment showed that his work was noted to have returned to the high level his superiors had come to expect. Given the applicant’s strong performance before and after the July 2011 through February 2012 rating period, had leadership taken the appropriate course of action when they first suspected the applicant had an alcohol problem the applicant’s career could have been salvaged. As such, an injustice was committed when the applicant’s career was effectively ended by a referral OPR that was heavily prejudiced by behavioral evidence of a disease, the existence of which the raters had suspected much earlier yet failed to act in accordance with relevant DoD and Air Force guidance to prevent its further progression. A complete copy of the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force and the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 May 2015 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on the applicant’s request that his AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) (Lt thru Col), rendered for the period 14 July 2011 through 1 February 2012, be declared void and removed from his record; his Joint Credit Departure Reason Code be changed from “Q” to “S”; he be awarded a JMSM for his service in Berlin; and he be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for Calendar Year 2012B (CY12B) Below-the-Promotion Zone (BTZ) and CY13C In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs). After reviewing the complete evidence of record and the circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that the applicant has suffered an error or injustice. We took note of the applicant’s contention that his leadership failed to recognize the required medical attention he needed when he indicated he had a problem. In addition, we also noted the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant’s favorable recommendation and his position that the applicant’s career was effectively ended by a referral OPR that was heavily prejudiced by behavioral evidence of a disease. However, irrespective of these arguments and the opinion of the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, we are not convinced that the evidence presented is sufficient to cause us to come to the conclusion that the actions of the applicant’s leadership during the period in question were inappropriate to the circumstances or unfairly caused harm to the applicant’s career given the conduct related to his alcohol dependence. While we note the comments of the BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant inferring the actions of the command partially contributed to the applicant’s plight, we believe it is reasonable to expect that the applicant could have also taken action to avail himself of the resources at his disposal to deal with his alcohol dependency. Based on the evidence provided, we agree that the actions by the Air Force authorities were appropriate to the circumstances and conclude that the applicant has not sustained his burden of establishing existence of either an error or injustice. 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 issues 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-2013-04117 in Executive Session on 24 June 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04667 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 August 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 8 August 2014. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPPO, dated 21 August 2014. Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 31 December 2014. Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 22 January 2015. Exhibit G.  Memorandum, BCMR Clinical Psychology Consultant, dated 16 April 2015. Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 May 2015. 9 10