ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01562-2

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider his request for the following:

1.	 His referral officer performance report (OPR) for the period ending 1 Aug 14 be removed 
from his record.

2.	 He receive special selection board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel 
(O-6). 

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is an Air Force lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

He received a referral OPR for the reporting period 27 Jun 13 to 1 Aug 14 for LOR on 15 Jul 14 for driving under the influence (DUI).

On 9 Oct 18 the Board considered and denied his request for removal of his LOR and the referral OPR and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by an SSB.  The applicant contended he was not fully culpable for his DUI due to his chronic stress and depression.  However, the Board agreed with the opinions and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSM, AFPC/DP2SPE, AFPC/DP2SP and the BCMR Psychological Advisor that the preponderance of the evidence did not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board concluded he displayed poor judgment when he chose to consume alcohol and drive while under the influence and was properly held accountable.  The Board also found the applicant provided no corroborating evidence he was the victim of a toxic work environment.  

For an accounting of the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the AFBCMR Letter and Record of Proceedings at Exhibit I, with Exhibits A through H.  

The applicant’s report on individual personnel (RIP) printout shows he was deferred for promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6) “three and up.”  

His OPRs in the automated records management system (ARMS) show he received “Meets Standards” ratings for the periods following his 1 Aug 14 referral OPR.  

On 2 Mar 21, the applicant requested reconsideration of his request for removal of his referral OPR and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a SSB.  The applicant withdrew his request for removal of the LOR as it is no longer in his records.  All of his subsequent OPRs were negatively impacted due to the 2014 referral OPR, to include his 2020 OPR and his senior rater’s judgment of his promotion potential.  

The incident that led to his referral OPR was a mental health issue and was not a deliberate act.  It stemmed from his highly toxic work environment.  He was severely marginalized.  He should never have received the referral OPR and it was unjustly administered.

The Board denied his initial request.  However, it is evident to him that the bona fide mental health issues be considered as a root cause.  Additionally, he provides an Inspector General (IG) Report of Investigation (ROI) as additional new evidence.

The Board’s narrowly focused opinion in denying his request had adverse effects on him.  He went through another promotion cycle with a blank promotion recommendation form (PRF), after having received Do Not Promote (DNP) recommendations for a few years.  He knows what it means to make rational choices after a few drinks and what happened that night was a gross anomaly.  This perspective has also been validated during various mental health counseling sessions.  If possible, he asks the Board members be from a pool of professionals who have experiences with counseling or depression for a just and fair perspective and outcome of his case.  

In Jan 20, he re-entered therapy to help cope with various stressors as a “tune-up” and to help address other life stressors.  He is not depressed these days but is having a difficult time getting over this event as it is grossly unjust to him.  His mental health situation was never adequately considered during the administrative and punitive aspects of his case.  Although Air Force Instructions (AFI) were followed, genuine due process did not occur.  

He received the provided IG ROI through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  The complaint was submitted by a co-worker.  The allegations were independent and not influenced by him.  They are the perceptions and experiences of a former co-worker during their overlapping timespans.  There was a toxic and hostile work environment. 

The applicant provides a redacted ROI dated 27 Jul 15. On 5 May 14, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) received a referral from the DoD IG Hotline in which an anonymous source alleged the directorate was responsible for fraud, waste, and abuse (FW&A) and gross mismanagement related to a contract.  The ROI lists the following 14 allegations:  

	Allegation 1. Questionable use of contract employees (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 2. There was a failure to manage and extend a contract to allow contractor employees to continue work (UNSUBSTANTIATED). 

	Allegation 3. Improper use of sole contracts.  (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 4. The contracting vehicle was “government money laundering” (UNSUBSTANTIATED)

	Allegation 5. Use of contractor employees as network and information technology administrative support on a sole source contract (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 6. Duplication of contract work. (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 7. Lack of government oversight, contractors reporting to a contractor, hostile work environment, and failure to complete tasks and unauthorized access to contract sensitive information (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 8.  Duplication of effort by employees, organization conflict of interest (UNSUBSTANTIATED).  

	Allegation 9.  Performing duties without required certification (UNSUBSTANTIATED).  

	Allegation10. Unnecessarily hiring new managers and contractor employees (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 11. Misuse and mismanagement of a telescope program and unqualified personnel assigned to the program.  (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 12.  Misuse and mismanagement of analyst training (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 13. Use of an amateur to create the office telescope network was gross mismanagement (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

	Allegation 14.  Lack of government oversight and misuse of the telescope mount. (UNSUBSTANTIATED).

The investigating officer (IO) concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations in the anonymous DoD Hotline complaint.  Counsel to the IG opined it appeared the complainant was frequently mistaken.  

Some of the allegations were indeed perceptions but the perceptions stemmed from the reality of favoritism and personal contractor services.  The drain on the morale of the unit was a key contribution to friction in the work place.  The contract and government lines were blurred with government personnel reporting to and taking direction from senior contractor employees.  This contributed to the toxicity.  He experienced a hostile work environment, especially when asked to be transferred out of the division.  He asks the Board to look at the allegations and to read into what may have caused the allegations.  He was not the only person to experience a hostile work environment.  	

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit K.
 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board remains unconvinced the evidence presented demonstrates an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the Board’s earlier decision and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  While the applicant contends he was not fully culpable for driving under the influence due to his mental health conditions and stress as a result of his toxic work environment, he has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate this to be the case.  While the Board does not dispute the applicant sought and received mental health treatment after his DUI, the Board does not find his mental health caused or excused his decision to drive after consuming alcohol.  The Board also finds the provided IG ROI with 14 unsubstantiated allegations insufficient to conclude the applicant was the victim of a toxic work environment or that it mitigated or excused his decision to drive under the influence.  The applicant also requested board members familiar with mental health issues and depression review his case.  While applicants to the BCMR are not permitted to request specific board members, the applicant’s case was adjudicated by panel members on the BCMR Medical Board.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-01562 in Executive Session on 15 and 21 Sep 21:

             , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record. The panel considered the following:

Exhibit I:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-H, dated 10 Oct 18.
Exhibit J:   Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit K:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 2 Mar 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.