RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02840 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 3 Apr 07 thru 25 Nov 07, be, declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The punishment she received was due to the guidelines set by the Air Force and did not take into consideration the nature of the incident/decision made. The decision to use her Government Travel Card (GTC) was made due to an emergency situation/act of desperation. Memos covering five years of service since her change of reporting official OPR and punishment document her stellar improvements, her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) has been removed and all disciplinary actions are complete. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty; AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation; AF Forms 707; AF Forms 2224, Air Force Commendation Medal, letters of recommendation and various other documentation associated with her request. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to AF Form 3070C, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) Proceedings (Officer), dated 22 Oct 07, the applicant was charged with violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Specifically, she was accused of wrongfully using her GTC for personal, family, or household related expenses from 26 Mar 06 thru 19 May 07. The applicant consulted counsel, waived her right to demand trial by court-martial, and accepted the NJP. She submitted written matters in her own behalf and requested a personal appearance before the commander. The commander determined she committed the offense alleged, and imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per month for two months and a reprimand. The portion of the punishment which extended to forfeitures in excess of $200.00 per month for two months was suspended until 12 May 08, at which time it was to be remitted without further action, unless sooner vacated. The applicant did not appeal the commander’s decision. The commander decided the action would be filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). The Article 15 action was reviewed by the servicing and General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) offices and determined to be legally sufficient. On 31 Dec 10, the applicant was honorably discharged under the Force Shaping – Voluntary Separation Program (VSP). She was credited with 8 years, 11 months, and 18 days of active military service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate at the time it was written. In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, “Evaluators are strongly encouraged to comment in performance reports on misconduct that reflects a disregard of the law, whether civil law or the UCMJ, or when adverse actions such as Article 15, Letters of Reprimand, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster have been taken. In this case, the applicant wrongfully used her GTC for personal, family and/or household related expenses. The rating chain appropriately chose to comment and document on the underlying wrongdoing, which caused the report to be referred to the applicant for comments and consideration to the next evaluator. The applicant provided no evidence within her appeal to show that the referral comment on the OPR was inaccurate or unjust. Moreover, a final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as the final “check and balance” in order to ensure that the report was given fair consideration IAW the established intent of the current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the Article 15 as served to the applicant, DPSID concludes that its’ mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant claims “the punishment received was due to the guidelines set by the Air Force and did not take into consideration the nature of the incident/decision made.” However, she does not elaborate further nor does she provide any proof or evidence whatsoever that the mention of the Article 15 was inappropriate in the contested OPR. The applicant does not provide any evidence that would substantiate her assertions that the evidence used to support the NJP against her was insufficient. In addition, no evidence has been provided that any of the administrative actions commented on the report have been rescinded or otherwise invalidated. A 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 simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so. The applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or injustice in the legal sufficiency of the Article 15 and the referral OPR which comments upon it. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from any rating official on the contested OPR. Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Air Force guidelines states the GTC cannot be used for any personal, family and/or household related expenses. However, she used her GTC during the period of 26 Mar 06 and/on 19 May 07, for permissive Temporary Duty (TDY) (as instructed she could as a second lieutenant) and/en route emergency leave. She is not disputing the ruling or judgment from her leadership; however, she is stating that a similar double jeopardy has occurred regarding the review of her records as stated by the Mobilization Assistant to the USCYBEROMMAND/CC. She worked hard to restore her leadership’s trust and regard. The evidence she submitted provided a history and shows how the referral comments provided a bias review of her overall career snapshot and therefore, a fair consideration during the process was unobtainable. She took responsibility for her actions and used the card because she had no other options. Even after her rating chain evaluated her duty performance and her punishment was completed, the one contested OPR voided all the awards, accolades and accomplishments she received on active duty and in the Reserves. She has proof that her leadership fought internally/externally to showcase her improvement and hard work to no avail. The Air Force would not allow any type of overturn after the one incident. Even after joining the Air Force Reserves, her leadership provided recommendation memorandums to assist in painting a new picture of the hard work and trust that was restored. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ 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 injustice. We took careful 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. While the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluation is noted, we do not find her assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive in this matter. Additionally, we are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period. 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 Docket Number BC-2013-02840 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Nov 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 1 2