RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00060
		INDEX CODE:  111.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 5 Jul 02 through 9 Apr 03 be declared void and removed from his records.

The AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, rendered for the period 26 Jul 02 through 24 Oct 02 be declared void and removed from his records.

(Examiner’s Note:  Although not specifically stated, it appears the applicant wants the AF Form 475 to be voided and removed from his records).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

(DD Form 149 dtd 21 Dec 04 - A1)

He had previously served on active duty and in the Air Force Reserve but had been completely inactive for over nine years before voluntarily returning to active duty in 2001.  He never received any officer refresher training prior to being assigned to Nellis AFB, which was detrimental to his success.  His previous Air Force experience was in a much different work environment.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A1.

(DD Form 149 dtd 1 Aug 05 – A2)

The United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) did not follow disenrollment procedures in that Section IV of the USAFSAM Form 1, Record of Administrative Action, dated 24 Oct 02 was not completed, and that there is, therefore, no evidence he was ever administratively disenrolled from the course.

The USAFSAM Form 1 was completed incorrectly.

He was not referred to the Education Support Division prior to being dismissed from the course and was told to leave USAFSAM after signing the USAFSAM Form 1 without being disqualified.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A2.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate he was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 20 May 82, and he was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 20 Oct 82.  He was honorably released from active duty on 23 Sep 86 in the grade of captain and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.

He was assigned to the Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS) on 1 Jul 94 and removed from ISLRS on 30 Jan 01.  He was appointed a captain, Air Force Reserve, on 31 Jan 01.

Applicant was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 6 Mar 01.  

A USAFSAM Form 1, dated 24 Oct 02, indicates the applicant was administratively disenrolled from the Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course based on his demonstrated inability to adapt or display the necessary physical, psychological, or personality traits desired or required for completion of a course.  However, Section IV (Action by Approving Official) of the USAFSAM Form 1 was not completed.

He was honorably discharged on 30 Jun 03 under the provisions of AFI 36-3207 (Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion) in the grade of captain.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 2001 follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	20 Nov 01	Meets Standards
	 4 Jul 02	Meets Standards
  *   9 Apr 03                      Meets Standards (Referral)

* Contested Report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial indicating that while the applicant may have been at a slight disadvantage over his peers coming back on active duty after being completely inactive for over nine years, it was up to him to take the necessary steps to attain the knowledge personally and professionally for successful growth.  Applicant's referral report was generated by the actions he chose to take (i.e., was administratively disenrolled from the Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course for inappropriate conduct) not due to the fact he had just come back on active duty.  Applicant's referral report as written is in compliance with all applicable standards in accordance with the governing instruction.  While the applicant does not agree with the evaluator's choice of verbiage/comments on his performance report, he was not charged with assessing his own performance.  He had the option at the time he was served the referral memorandum/report to provide a rebuttal to his evaluators stating why he felt the report was unjust, but chose not to provide any statements.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that the USAFSAM Form 1 shows no evidence he was administratively disenrolled because Section IV was not completed.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA recommended denial indicating that they were able to obtain documents which detailed the applicant’s underlying misconduct which led to his dismissal from the Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course.  While they did not contain the applicant’s approved administrative disenrollment from the course, the Board should consider and assign them their appropriate value during its deliberation.  According to HQ USAF/JAA, the applicant did not refute any of the substantive comments made in the Record of Administrative Action (USAFSAM Form 1) or the OPR comments.  For example, the applicant failed to respond or provide evidence that he met the Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course academic requirements, demonstrated good officership, possessed professionalism, etc.  If these comments were untrue, surely the applicant would eagerly provide such evidence to the Board to meet his burden of proof.  In addition, the Board should also consider the applicant was provided the referral performance report and given the opportunity to comment and rebut it, yet he inexplicably elected not to provide comments or rebuttal as indicated in Block VII (Additional Rater Overall Assessment).  In their opinion, the applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of any error or present facts and circumstances supporting an injustice.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 26 Jul 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit G).  

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFSAM/CC recommended denial noting the applicant was administratively disenrolled from the Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course on 24 Oct 02 in accordance with the governing instruction.  The behaviors he exhibited during the course were consistent with the cited paragraphs and were documented in his student administrative file, USAFSAM Form 1, and the AF Form 475.  They indicated that although the USAFSAM Form 1 contained an administrative error where the Chair, Department of Aerospace Education and Training signed, it still showed the person in that position coordinated and approved the disenrollment.  Therefore, the AF Form 475 (Education/Training Report) was not marked in error and should not be changed.

A complete copy of the USAFSAM/CC evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the USAFSAM/CC evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 17 Oct 05 for review and response.  By letter, dated 28 Nov 05, the applicant requested his cases be temporarily withdrawn (Exhibit J).  By letter, dated 6 Dec 05, the applicant was notified that his applications had been temporarily withdrawn and would remain closed until such time as he indicated he was prepared to proceed (Exhibit K).

Applicant provided a response, dated 5 Dec 05, which was prior to his receipt of notification that his cases had been withdrawn, indicating he did not agree with the comments in the advisory opinions, and that some of the statements are false or misleading but he lacks the necessary evidence to refute them.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

Applicant provided an additional response, dated 22 Dec 05, again alleging appropriate procedures were not followed in his disenrollment, which is attached at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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 (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an error or injustice.  No evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction the applicant’s OPR closing 9 Apr 03 and training report closing 24 Oct 02 (AF Form 475) contained inaccurate assessments of his performance.  We also do not find sufficient evidence he was not appropriately disenrolled from the Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course.  While we note USAFSAM Form 1 contained an administrative error where the Chair, Department of Aerospace Education and Training signed as the indorsing official rather than the approving official, it still reflected her intent to approve the applicant’s disenrollment.  Therefore, in our view, this was a harmless error.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2005-00060 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 21 Dec 04 and 1 Aug 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 29 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 19 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jul 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, USAFSAM/CC, dated 13 Oct 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 05.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Nov 05.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Dec 05.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 Dec 05.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Dec 05.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair