RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05797 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following documents be expunged from his record: 1. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 26 Mar 12. 2. His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) covering the period 2 Jun 11 through 1 Jun 12. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly issued a referral OPR based upon his having received an LOR, which itself was not justified. The LOR was not justified because: 1. The rationale provided for issuing the LOR was for falsifying an official document (an AFTO781 used to document aircraft simulator use); however, the allegedly falsified document was never produced for the applicant to examine. 2. The commander did not direct a Commander Directed Inquiry (CDI) prior to issuing the LOR. 3. The likelihood the applicant lied is diminished, if not eliminated, by the lifetime of standards he has maintained and been recognized for. 4. The AFTO781 which the applicant is alleged to have falsified is itself not accurate because it shows simulator usage beginning and ending on whole hours, irrespective of the time the simulator was actually used. He took between 15 and 20 minutes to do all his requirements with dead time. He may have cut some procedural corners, but at no time did he falsify a record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of major (O-4) during the matter under review. On 26 Mar 12, the applicant’s squadron commander issued him an LOR. The reason for taking this action was that on 23 Mar 12 the applicant “falsified an official document, claiming (he) had completed specific quarterly training events required before being able to deploy on 26 Mar 12, when, in fact, (he) did not conduct the training as dictated by regulation.” On 19 Jun 12, the applicant was issued a referral OPR cover the period 2 Jun 11 through 1 Jun 12 which included the statement “Issued LOR for falsification of legal documents.” In addition, the applicant was rated on the OPR as “Does Not Meet Standards” in Block III, Performance Factors, Block IX.3, Professional Qualities, and Block IX.5, Judgment and Decisions. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to expunge the applicant’s LOR, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, states “Administer a counseling, admonition, or reprimand, verbally or in writing. If written, the letter states: What the member did or failed to do, citing specific incidents and their dates, what improvement is expected,” and “that further deviation may result in more severe action.” After careful review, the evidence presented revealed only minor discrepancies which have no bearing on the administrative action itself. The discrepancies do not invalidate the commander’s action and authority to administer the LOR. The proper procedures for administering an LOR were followed. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to have his referral OPR expunged from his record, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant claims his LOR is not based on credible evidence, and therefore, the referral OPR, which is based on his having received the LOR, is unjust. The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or injustice and denied the applicant’s request. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, states evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance reports on misconduct when adverse actions such as an LOR have been issued. The applicant received a referral OPR for receiving an LOR for falsifying an official document. The applicant provided no evidence within his case to show the referral comment on the OPR was inaccurate or unjust; therefore, the inclusion of the referral comment on the OPR was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the applicant’s LOR, its mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Furthermore, the applicant does not deny what transpired during the incident, rather makes an argument the evidence used against him was somehow lacking. AFPC/DPSIM recommended denying the applicant’s request to expunge his LOR. A final review of the contested OPR evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure the report was given fair consideration in accordance with the established Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System. Based upon the legal sufficiency of the LOR as rendered, and no evidence within the applicant’s file to indicate the LOR was removed, the mention of the LOR in the referral OPR was appropriate. Finally, Air Force policy is that an evaluation is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. It is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it was rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain—not only for support, but for clarification/explanation. The applicant has not substantiated the contested OPR was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The basis for the LOR and referral OPR is the allegation that before deploying, the applicant falsified an official document, claiming he had completed specific quarterly training events required to be completed before deployment when he, in fact, had not conducted the training dictated by regulation. The applicant’s commander stated, in her 25 Mar 12 Memo for the Record, the applicant acknowledged to her that he never touched the controls of the simulator and did not “fly” the simulator. In addition, the applicant “claimed that he knew he was not conducting the training as required by regulation, but was attempting to clean up his record to ensure availability for his deployment leaving on 26 Mar 12.” In his own statement, the applicant acknowledged he did not “turn on sound and motion or fly the profile real-time, [but] felt that I had accomplished the events at a sufficient level that was in the best interest of the 91st Air Refueling Squadron so that I could be current for all events during my upcoming deployment…and not negatively affect mission requirements given the available time.” This statement represents a full acknowledgement that he was trying to put the best spin on events to rationalize his failure. All of the available evidence clearly establishes the applicant failed to accomplish the training as required by regulation (the basis listed in the LOR), and his completion of the AFTO781 was known by him to be a false statement. The applicant did not just fail to accomplish the training required for deployment he attempted to thereafter “pencil-whip” the requirement and falsified a document in the process. The LOR and the referral OPR that documents his misconduct are both legally sufficient, and there was no material error in the base for, or administration of, these actions. Receipt of the LOR and referral OPR for the lack of integrity represented by this behavior did not constitute an overreaction or injustice. The applicant has failed to prove any material error or injustice. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Through council, he takes exception to all three staff advisories which recommended denial. Addressing the AFPC/DPSID advisory, he states he provided clear evidence he did not make a false statement, and that he performed the required maneuvers on the simulator. In response to the AFPC/DPSIM advisory, he highlights what he calls “confusion surrounding his actions,” agrees his actions were unusual, but denies lying about what he did. And, in response to the AFPC/JA advisory, he contends he was a dedicated and highly regarded officer taking steps he thought were needed to get ready for deployment. Finally, he points out that the Board has the authority to correct punishments that are overzealous (Exhibit 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinions, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. While the Board notes the applicant’s contentions that the allegedly falsified document was not produced, a Commander Directed Inquiry (CDI) was not accomplished, the applicant had an excellent record prior to the incident, and the AFTO781 itself was not an accurate document, the fact that, as the commander stated in her 25 Mar 12 Memo for the Record, the applicant admitted he never touched the controls of the simulator, did not ‘fly’ the simulator at all, and knew he was not conducting the training as required, is in our view, a sufficient basis for the commander to have taken the actions she did. While the applicant’s arguments are duly noted, we do not find the evidence presented sufficient for us to conclude that it would be reasonable to substitute our judgment for that of the commander who was there at the time, had all the appropriate information available to her, and had the full authority to make said determination. Therefore, in the absence of evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, there was an abuse of discretionary authority, or the contested actions were disproportionate to the circumstances, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2013-05797 in Executive Session on 22 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05797 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 13 Feb 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Oct 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 22 Oct 14. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 14. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Dec 14.