RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03830 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored and she receive all back pay and allowances. 2. Her enlisted performance report (EPR) for the period ending 31 Jul 09 be removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was not afforded due process during the demotion process. She did not receive adequate feedback or rehabilitation in order to change her “bad behavior”, which is mandatory according to the governing Air Force Instructions (AFI). In a 23-page brief, the applicant and her attorney make the following key contentions: a. She was a scapegoat in the Afghanistan War Zone. She was required to perform 8 impossible tasks at one time; quickly and error-free. The 8 major jobs were: Unit correspondence, awards and decorations, chief postal clerk, support administrator for software, computer, maintenance, inventory, safety, and vehicle supervisor. b. She had no training or experience as a safety monitor or for most of the other duties that she was assigned. She had no access to needed reports and was assigned away from the necessary equipment. c. She received an LOR for failing to keep track of her loaded weapon while repairing computers. The work required her to be on her hands and knees in order to fix the computer. d. She was sent home after 8 weeks because she suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It took 11 people to replace her. e. She had an exemplary career up to this point. She was assigned exhausting duties at a base that was seriously undermanned. f. Her demotion focused on her Letter or Reprimand (LOR). Her unit concluded that, “We Cannot Correct This.” Her supervisor wrongly justified her demotion due, in part, to a matter that was 4 years old. In support of her request, the applicant provides a 23-page personal statement. Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the New York Air National Guard in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). The applicant received a referral EPR for the rating period of 1 Aug 08 thru 31 Jul 09after being rated “1” and for being marked “Does Not Meet Standards” in one or more areas. The EPR also contains comments derogatory in nature and references behavior not meeting minimum acceptable standards of professional conduct. On 10 Sep 09, the applicant acknowledge receipt of the Referral EPR notification. On 10 Sep 09, the applicant’s commander notified her of his intention to demote her to staff sergeant. The specific reason for this action was because her duty performance while deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 451 Air Expeditionary Wing (AEW) was substandard and she was derelict in the performance of her duties on multiple occasions. Specifically, the applicant was consistently unprofessional towards customers seeking assistance at the wing staff office that had a negative impact on the wing staff relationship with the members of the wing; she failed to show for assigned duty to assist at a bi-weekly meeting on two occasions, despite counseling and a direct order from the captain in charge; she failed to keep her M-16 rifle under her control on multiple occasions, leaving it in a number of different locations along with her ammunition. After a legal review, the staff judge advocate found the evidence legally sufficient to support the determination that the applicant failed to meet her non-commissioned officer (NCO) responsibilities and that those failures were serious and significant enough to warrant a demotion. Thereafter, the 109th Force Support Squadron (109th FSS) Commander demoted the applicant to staff sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 22 Jan 10. The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the report closing 31 Jul 07: RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 31 Jul 07 Excellent 31 Jul 08 4 31 Jul 09* 1 31 Jul 10 3 31 Jul 11 3 * Referral EPR _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POE recommends denial. After reviewing the evidence of record, they find her complaint does not substantiate an error. The documentation submitted by the applicant and the demotion package that was received from the 109th FFS indicates she was given due process in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, which states, when appropriate, give Airmen an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before demotion action is initiated. Commanders should maintain supporting documentation of all rehabilitation and probationary actions. In addition, A1POE finds the referral EPR was processed IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.9, Referral Report Procedures. The applicant contends that due process or rehabilitation was not afforded to her, which is mandatory according to the governing instructions. After a review of the information provided and the additional information provided by her unit, A1POE was not able to find sufficient evidence to determine she was not given due process. Furthermore, it is neither A1POE’s desire nor function to second guess a unit commander. The complete NGB/A1POE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS concurs with the NGB Subject Matter Expert’s (SME) advisory and does not find an injustice occurred. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant points out that when she returned to the United States, she worked very hard, pleading with her senior officer leadership and NCOs within her chain of command concerning “mentorship and rehabilitation efforts.” However, no one helped her. She explains that “Many of these individuals refused to even give me a statement of my good-faith efforts to salvage my rank.” She would like to know how she can possibly give the Board the evidence for her case when senior NCOs and officers treat her as if she had a communicable disease. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her rank of technical sergeant should be restored with back pay and allowances and that her contested EPR be removed. The applicant contends that she was not afforded due process during the demotion process and she did not receive adequate feedback or rehabilitation as is mandated in the governing instruction. Her contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find the evidence provided sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant’s commander, being aware of all of the circumstances involved, was in the best position to determine whether the applicant merited demotion. He also is presumed to have acted on the basis of information he determined to be reliable when he made the decision. Although the applicant presents detailed arguments, she has failed to provide persuasive evidence to show an error or injustice in her demotion occurred, that the commander abused his discretionary authority or that she was not afforded due process. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-03830 in Executive Session on 17 May 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 11, w/atch. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 7 Feb 12. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 8 Mar 12. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 12. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Apr 12.