RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01149 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following documents be expunged from his record: 1. The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 7 Feb 12. 2. The Unfavorable Information File (UIF) created as a result of the 7 Feb 12 LOR. 3. The Referral AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period of 24 May 11 through 5 Apr 12. Further, he requests consideration for a Special Selection Board (SSB), for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His LOR, UIF, and referral OPR should never have been established because he was not willfully disobeying a direct order [to not consume alcohol in the CENTCOM AOR]; instead, he was mistakenly following the past practice of his predecessor. He believed he was authorized to consume alcohol, by an exception stated in General Order 1B, during “counterintelligence operations,” which was one of the missions his unit performed. He believed that to mean the unit was allowed to consume small amounts of alcohol during off-base meetings with local intelligence sources to build rapport. He was first informed his unit had a waiver to General Order 1 during his change of command brief with the outgoing commander. The outgoing commander showed him a document on official letterhead, which he believed to be a valid waiver, and did not question its validity. Upon further reflection, he thought the outgoing commander’s policy of two alcoholic drinks was too lenient and reduced his unit’s consumption to one drink per “source meet.” The applicant later became the subject of an investigation when photographs of him, and members of his unit, consuming alcohol were discovered on a government computer. The applicant admits he drank alcohol, and allowed subordinate members of his unit to do the same, but only did so under what he believed to be previously approved circumstances. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 12 Feb 99, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 7 Feb 12, according to information provided by the applicant, he received an LOR for violating CENTCOM General Order 1, (consuming alcohol), and allowing members of his command to consume alcohol. The applicant submitted statements on his own behalf and the decision to administer the LOR and place it in a UIF was upheld on 16 Feb 12. On 8 Jun 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the referral OPR for the period of 24 May 11 through 5 Apr 12. On 17 Jul 13, the applicant was informed he was considered, but not selected, for promotion by the CY13A Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) Central Selection Board (CSB). On 31 Jul 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Aug 14, and furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 15 years, 5 months, and 19 days of active service. 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 does not provide a position whether the actions of the applicant’s commander constitute an injustice, but does recommend denial indicating there is no evidence of an error in the processing the applicant’s LOR and UIF. After careful review, it was determined the evidence presented regarding the LOR dated 7 Feb 12 was completed properly in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program. The applicant had three duty days to submit rebuttal documents for consideration by the initiator and his written acknowledgment and rebuttal documents were considered by the initiator. Ultimately, the initiator elected to uphold the LOR and establish a UIF. The AF IMT 1058, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Action, is the document used to refer the LOR for file in the UIF. Since there was no AF IMT 1058 provided, we cannot determine if it was accomplished within AFI guidance. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating no evidence of an error or injustice with regards to the applicant’s referral OPR. The applicant received an LOR for actions which were completely within his control. It was ultimately the applicant's responsibility to consistently demonstrate integrity and trustworthiness. This office concurs with the AFPC/DPSIM assessment to deny relief to remove the LOR. Further, we also observed the applicant has not demonstrated any evidence, within his case, of an error or injustice in the legal sufficiency of the LOR, and the referral OPR which comments upon it. Based upon the legal sufficiency of the LOR as rendered, and no evidence that the punishment was ever removed, we find that its mention in the applicant's contested OPR was appropriate, and as such there is no basis to which we can support removal of the contested OPR. An OPR is considered 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. To effectively challenge 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 any information/support from any rating official on the contested OPR. It is determined the referral OPR was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Once an OPR 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 that 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 no evidence of an error or injustice This office agrees with the other advisory opinions [to deny relief] and only provide more details regarding the applicant’s claims he misinterpreted the Air Force policy regarding drinking of alcoholic beverages in Iraq, and that he relied in part on a policy instituted by his predecessor as commander. Neither of these arguments constitutes a defense to the allegations he both used alcohol himself and allowed the use by others under his command. The applicant had an obligation to independently determine what the rules/policies in effect were, and to carry out those rules accordingly. He could not rely on the policy of a predecessor commander, particularly when the policy was highly questionable. The policies set forth in General Order 1 were clear regarding the consumption of alcohol; neither applicant nor his subordinates qualified for the limited exception to the order. Moreover, his claim that he misinterpreted such a clear rule is simply not credible. We concur the applicant has failed to articulate any error or injustice, and that the application should be denied. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: After a thirty-day extension request (Exhibit G), the applicant refutes the position of the Air Force OPRs and contends the OPRs do not understand the complexities of his circumstances. Specifically, he contends the nature of the deployed counterintelligence mission subjected him to operating outside normal standards applied to other airmen. Further, he contends it is reasonable to believe following the same procedures (to include verbal and written guidance) of his predecessor is acceptable and would not subject him to disciplinary actions for doing something previously accepted by others; he was also responsible for obtaining waivers for alcohol for others on future occasions. He inquires if the OPRs place so much trust in those closest to him, in evaluating his performance; he wonders why it is not reasonable for him to trust his predecessor. Finally, he is adamant his integrity and trustworthiness are above reproach and he has been unjustly treated throughout this entire process (Exhibit H). 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, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 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. The board acknowledged the operating environment and the mission the applicant was entrusted to do, however, we find the evidence presented was not sufficient to demonstrate an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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-2014-01149 in Executive Session on 28 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-01149 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 14 May 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 18 Apr 14. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 6 May 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 May 15. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Jun 15. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jul 15, w/atchs.