RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00852
		INDEX CODE:  111.00
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 SEPTEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF Form 475, Education/Training Report rendered on her for the period 18 Jun 95 through 12 Apr 96, be corrected to reflect “Distinguished Graduate (DG).”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Training Report (TR) is unjust because she was awarded DG for the Fundamentals of Intelligence Course.

In support of her appeal, applicant provides a copy of her TR, dated 12 Apr 96 and her Fundamentals of Intelligence Course “Distinguished Graduate” Certificate.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of major with a date of rank of 1 Oct 05.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 18 Jun 95.  A resume of her OPRs and Training Reports follow:

	Closeout Date	Overall Rating

	* 12 Apr 96	Training Report (TR)
	  12 Apr 97	Meets Standards (MS)
	  12 Apr 98	MS
	  12 Apr 99	MS
	  12 Apr 00	MS
	   9 Aug 00	MS
	   7 Sep 01	TR
	  26 Mar 02	TR
	  17 May 02	TR
	  26 Mar 03	MS
	  26 Mar 04	MS
	  26 Mar 05	MS
	  26 Mar 06	MS

* Contested Report 

The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports,    20 Feb 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to correct the TR.

The applicant attended a two-part course that consists of the Fundamentals of Intelligence Course (19 weeks) and Intelligence Applications Officer Course (14 weeks).  The total course length is 34 weeks.  The applicant received DG for the Fundamentals of Intelligence Course; however, she was not selected as DG for the Intelligence Applications Officer Course.  The evaluator accurately reflected the member’s DG status by commenting on the fact in Section III of the TR.  The fact is the member was DG for one portion of the course not the overall course.  To mark the DG block in Section 3 of the TR would be unfair to all the commissioned officers who were/were not selected as distinguished graduates for both courses.  Therefore, correcting the TR to mark the DG block of the contested TR would make the applicant’s record inaccurate.

Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.  To effectively challenge a TR, 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 the rating chain on the contested TR.  It appears the reports were accomplished in direct accordance with applicable regulations.

The DPPPEP complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 Apr 07 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 Docket Number    BC-2007-00852 in Executive Session on 5 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-00852 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Apr 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Apr 07.

								XXXXXXXXXX
								Chair