RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01444
						INDEX CODE:  111.02
  						COUNSEL:  NONE

  						HEARING DESIRED:  NO
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His USAF Weapons School (USAFWS) Training report (TR) for the period 10 January 2000 through 13 May 2000 be removed from his record.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The USAFWS applied inconsistent evaluation criteria, which led to the removal of personnel who demonstrated more capability than those who were allowed to continue in the program.  As a result of the inconsistent criteria used, he was removed from training, having a negative impact on his career and his subsequent non-selection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Removal of the contested TR will boost his chances for promotion.  

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of an Air Form 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint Registration; a background paper detailing the alleged inconsistencies; a statement signed by all but one of his classmates alleging the inconsistencies; and an additional statement from one classmate that later became part of the USAFWS staff, stating that the following class changed their assessment criteria due to the inconsistent standards that were applied in the previous class.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active in the grade of major with a date of rank of 1 March 2003.  He has a Total Active Federal Military Service Date and a Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date of 13 January 1993.  

On 20 April 2000, the applicant filed an AF Form 102 alleging the USAFWS Division Commander used his position to discriminate against students by applying different standards to different students attending the space division course.  On 16 August 2000, the 57th Wing Commander found no evidence of discrimination or different standards being applied to different students.  

The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance ratings:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION 

 9 Jan 00	(Captain)			Meets Standards (MS)
13 May 00					Training Report (TR)*
14 Feb 01					Training Report (TR)
13 May 01							MS
13 May 02							MS
13 May 03 (Major)					MS
13 May 04							MS
13 May 05							MS
13 May 06							MS

The applicant has one non-selection to the grade of major by the P00506C Major Central Selection Board.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial to remove the applicant’s 13 May 2000 training report based on the fact the report is not incorrect or unjust as written.  DPPPEP states the applicant’s appeal was forwarded to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) for review, where they reviewed it and requested additional documentation from the applicant.  Upon receipt of the additional documentation, the ERAB determined to recommend denial.  The applicant contends the TR reflects negatively on an otherwise strong record and believes removal of the report will enhance his chances for promotion.  However, the report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion or may impact future promotion or career opportunities.  The applicant failed to substantiate the alleged discrimination and that there were different standards being applied to different students.  He was eliminated from the course after nine weeks and failed to prove the report is inaccurate or unjust.  Therefore, the report is accurate as written.  Furthermore, there was no due diligence on the part of the applicant.  The contested report has been in his records since 2000, yet he did not take corrective action until seven years after the fact, and only after being non-selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The applicant was; however, selected to the rank of major in 2003, with the contested TR in his record.  

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

It was decided that his IG complaint was handled as a Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI); however, as a CDI there is no requirement that all the people he listed in his complaint be contacted.  Therefore, none of his fellow classmates were contacted during the CDI to discuss or confirm his contentions.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an injustice.  We note the applicant’s contention that none of fellow classmates were contacted during the CDI to confirm his contentions; however, he has presented no evidence to this effect.  Since the applicant chose to wait almost seven years to submit an appeal, a copy of the CDI is no longer available since such investigations are only required to be maintained for a period of two years.  While the applicant has provided a statement from an instructor confirming procedures for training were revised subsequent to his class, he provides no evidence to prove that he was specifically discriminated against.  Furthermore, we have no reason to question the findings of the CDI that there was no evidence of discrimination without the evidence to the contrary.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence showing the contested report is an inaccurate depiction of the applicant’s performance during the rating period in question, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our findings in this case.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request to void his TR is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 21 August 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2007-01444 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 May 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Military Personnel Reocrds.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 19 Jun 07.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 28 Jul 07, w/atch.