RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2022-01008

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His officer performance report (OPR) for the reporting period ending 2 Mar 16 be removed from his records.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The admonishment for the commander directed investigation (CDI) was too severe given the circumstances, his performance and positive records.  His 2 Mar 16 OPR includes a falsified mid-term feedback date as it did not occur.  The two individuals who had authority to overturn his case have since retired and he now feels free to address his situation without reprisal.  His request for removal of the 2 Mar 16 OPR was denied by the evaluation report appeals board (ERAB).  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a major (O-4) in the Air Force.  

The applicant received a “Meets Standard” OPR for the reporting period ending 2 Mar 16.  The OPR states he was a driven chaplain with potential and that he should continue to be challenged.  The applicant marked “Yes” and on 22 Apr 16 signed Block VIII, Ratee’s Acknowledgement, “feedback was accomplished during the reporting period and upon receipt of the report.”

The applicant provides a letter to the CY21C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). In Jan 16, four chaplains were subjected to a CDI.  He received a letter of reprimand (LOR), which was later downgraded to a letter of admonishment (LOA).  The LOA was for not allowing a chaplain to preside over three protestant worship events, discussing the theology of his denomination.  The events occurred in 2015 while he was a first-time acting deputy wing chaplain.  He accepted responsibility in the LOA for his supervisory approach and acknowledged his mistakes.  He indicated the mid-term feedback date listed was falsified as it never occurred.  

On 12 Oct 21, the applicant was informed he was considered but not selected for promotion by the CY21C Lieutenant Colonel (Chaplain) CSB.  

On 13 Oct 21, the applicant accepted selective continuation on active duty until qualified for retirement as an officer, 20 years of military service and 10 years active commissioned serve or age 62, whichever date is earlier.  

On 28 Mar 22, the applicant was notified by AFPC the ERAB denied his appeal for removal of the contested OPR.  The ERAB was not convinced the original report was unjust or wrong.  The applicant was advised he could appeal the decision to the AFBCMR.

The applicant’s records do not include, and the applicant did not provide any CDI, LOA or any adverse information.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

DAFPM 2021-36-03, Adverse Information for Total Force Officer Selection Boards, dated 14 Jan 21and Section 502 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020, signed on 20 Dec 19, as codified in 10 U.S.C. § 615(a)(3) requires all adverse information to be filed in an officer’s master personnel records group and OSR for consideration by promotion boards.  The new policy removed the authority for WG/CCs or issuing authorities to direct removal of derogatory data from the OSR effective 1 Mar 20, as previously permissible in AFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, and AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records.  Adverse information requiring mandatory filing in the officer selection record (OSR) and master personnel records group includes but is not limited to LORs and any substantiated adverse finding or conclusion from an investigation or inquiry.  Only the AFBCMR may remove the adverse information from the officer’s record.  

AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board of Correction to Military Record (AFBCMR). Paragraph 2.4., the applicant bears the burden of providing evidence of an error or injustice.  It is incumbent on the applicant to submit exhibits believed to be relevant to the AFBCMR’s review.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence and only provides personal opinions and unsupported allegations.  He provides a memorandum to the CY21C Lieutenant Colonel CSB in which he states he accepted full responsibility for his supervisory approach and acknowledged his mistakes.  The OPR was accomplished according to Air Force instruction.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 29 Sep 22 for comment (Exhibit D) but has received no response. 

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 concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP3SP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant contends the LOA and the contested OPR were too severe given the circumstances of the CDI; however, the Board notes the applicant’s OPR was not a referral OPR and no LOA or CDI was provided to corroborate his contentions.  The applicant also contends the feedback date on the OPR was falsified; however, he signed the report on 22 Apr 16 indicating the required feedback was accomplished. Accordingly, the Board finds the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof to warrant granting the requested relief. Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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-2022-01008 in Executive Session on 8 Nov 22:

 , Panel Chair 
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 31 Mar 22.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 29 Sep 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 29 Sep 22.

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.