RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03495 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following be removed from his military records: a. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 15 Dec 09. b. His Unfavorable Information File (UIF). c. He be removed from the Control Roster. d. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). In addition, he would like his line number to staff sergeant (E- 5) be reinstated. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His punishments were unjustified. While assigned to the Airman Leadership School as a student, he was charged for drinking during a 6-ring standby for a Combat Capability Exercise. In accordance with the governing instructions, “Faculty and students will be considered unavailable for additional duties and/or exercise participation (as if TDY away from home station) throughout the course from start date to graduation.” After reviewing all facts in his case, the Inspector General (IG) found in his favor. He would like another review of his records to see if an injustice occurred. If so, he would like his records corrected and all derogatory paperwork be removed from his records. Furthermore, he requests his line number to staff sergeant be reinstated and he be allowed to attend Airman Leader School (ALS) in order to complete the training required to be promoted. In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a 90 MW/IG letter and an excerpt from AFI 36-2301. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior airman (E-4). Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant has not identified an error. The LOR, UIF, and Control Roster, were not based on the violation of a lawful order, but that of the applicant’s reliance on rumor and failure to seek clarification before consuming alcohol. The referral EPR was based on the applicant’s removal from training due to discipline issues; not violation of an order. JA points out that commanders have discretion in deciding whether to issue a reprimand, establish a UIF, place a member on the Control Roster, or make referral ratings or comments on an EPR. Although the cumulative result of the actions in this case may seem fairly severe or harsh, all actions were permissible and within the discretion of the commander’s authority. The JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did not submit an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the application and was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicant’s request. DPSID notes the letter from the IG states that on the first day of ALS Class 10B, the ALS Commandant briefed the students that while they attended ALS they were not on 6-ring standby from their units; however, they still had to follow the lawful order not to drink any alcoholic beverages. In addition, the IG opined the order not to drink alcoholic beverages while attending ALS may not be considered a lawful order unless the order was issued due to mission requirement; however, attending ALS is a mission requirement. Therefore, the report in question is valid and is not in violation of the governing instructions. In this case, the applicant has failed to provide any information or support from his rating chain. Although the applicant provides a letter from the IG, the information shows the applicant was breaching a lawful order, as mentioned earlier, since attending ALS is in fact a mission requirement. Consequently, DPSID does not recommend voiding or removing the report in question. AFPC/DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states the applicant’s LOR and UIF were accomplished IAW the governing instructions. AFPC/DPSIM complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and agrees with the DPSID and DPSIM evaluations. AFPC/DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jun 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ 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 and adopt their 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 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-2010-03495 in Executive Session on 1 Jul 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Mar 11. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 5 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, APFC/DPSOE, dated 16 Feb 11 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 11.