RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02832 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 June 2008 through 31 May 2009, be declared void and removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His referral OPR is inaccurate because the underlying Letter of Reprimand (LOR) was unwarranted and violated his due process. In addition, the referral OPR hinders his attempts to join the Air Force Reserve. The only allegation in the LOR that was factual was the claim that he did not maintain an accurate local vicinity mileage log for which he takes full responsibility. The other allegations were either false or were not violations at all. In his response to the LOR he detailed his admissions as well as the conflicting guidance he was provided, extenuating circumstances and his efforts to correct what he knew to be an error regarding the overpayment of his family separation allowance. The commander had three days to carefully consider the evidence before he rendered a decision. Instead, the commander upheld the LOR and decided to establish an Unfavorable Information File (UIF) on the very same day he received his response. It appears the commander made up his mind prior to receiving any information from him. He questions why he was not given harsher punishment if his offenses were so flagrant. Instead, he was promoted to the grade of captain, and a month later he had a Permanent Change of Station (PCS). In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of the contested OPR, a letter of support from his former commander, and various other documents related to his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 1 June 2011, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. On 26 May 2009, the applicant received an LOR for falsifying information on his travel voucher. On 29 May 2009, the applicant submitted a rebuttal. According to the contested OPR ending 31 May 2009, the applicant received an LOR for travel voucher inconsistencies incurred during his 6-month deployment. On 1 October 2011, the applicant resigned from the Air Force, was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with six years, four months, and one day of active service. Via Reserve Order PC-00180, the applicant was appointed in the Reserve of the Air Force effective 2 October 2011. The following is a resume of the applicant’s OPR profile: Period Ending Performance Factor 31 May 2008 Meets Standards * 31 May 2009 Does Not Meet Standards 31 May 2010 Meets Standards 23 December 2010 Meets Standards 29 April 2011 Meets Standards 19 September 2011 Meets Standards *Contested Report AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the LOR. DPSIM cannot determine if the commander’s action was fair or not; however, the commander followed proper procedures which were consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of AFI 36-2907, The Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void the contested OPR. He has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the report was rendered unfairly or unjustly. Based on the legal sufficiency of the LOR and no evidence that the punishment was ever removed, the reference to the LOR in the applicant’s contested OPR is appropriate. The report was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. Air Force policy states that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it represents 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 provides a compelling letter of support from his former commander, who was not part of his rating chain for the OPR in question. However, the applicant has failed to provide any information/support from any rating official on the contested OPR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 30 September 2015, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 error or injustice. We took careful 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Persuasive evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the administrative actions taken by his commander were beyond his scope of authority, that he abused his discretionary authority in taking those actions, or that the actions taken were precipitated by anything other than the applicant's own conduct. We do not find his assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided in support of his appeal, that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no c basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 this application in Executive Session on 3 November 2015, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-02832 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 July 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 29 October 2014. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 September 2015. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 September 2015.