RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02014

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 20 Jun 11 through 13 Apr 12, be declared void and removed from his military personnel records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His supervisor, pursued administrative action against him due to misconduct stemming from a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) he received in September 2011 and wrote a referral OPR.  The OPR does not accurately reflect his service during that period of time.  

He disputes the language in the OPR that speaks to his limited ability to perform his duties due to this DUI incident.  

He also disputes the accuracy of his primary Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) duty listed on his OPR.  His AFSC was 62E3E (Developmental Engineer and Acquisition Officer) but at the time of the DUI, he was performing the duties of a 13S (Mission Director) on the operations floor and a deputy of the Mission Execution Branch.  Neither of these positions were related to his primary AFSC and the DUI did not keep him from accomplishing any of his assigned duties.

Lastly, his OPR reads “Two LORs for DUI and intoxication while on military duty,” however, the DUI did not occur while on duty, but rather on his scheduled off-day.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 15 Jun 00, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

On 16 Nov 11, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for reporting for duty at his mental health appointment while intoxicated.

On 2 Apr 12, the applicant received a LOR for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

On 2 Jul 12, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant that he was referring the OPR with the closeout date of 13 Apr 12 in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Military Performance Evaluations, paragraph 3.9, indicating the report contained comment(s)/rating(s) that made the report a referral.  Specifically, what causes the report to be referred is:  Section III, Performance Factors, (Does Not Meet Standards); Section IV, Rater Overall Assessment, reflect comments pertaining to the applicant receiving two Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for DUI and intoxication while on military duty; member unable to perform AFSC duty in NRO; Section IX, Performance Factors, items 3 and 5; and Section X, Remarks, which reflects comments pertaining to the applicant receiving LORs for DUI and Intoxication While on Military duty.

In the applicant’s rebuttal to the referral OPR, dated 11 Jul 12, he states in part that he makes no excuses for his behavior and concurs that he did not meet standards for that period of time.  However, he took responsibility for his actions and issues.  Since his alcoholism was identified, he completed everything the Air Force required of him in taking control of his addiction.  He also states that he expected to be graded against his performance in the reassigned duties as opposed to the duties he was not allowed to accomplish by discretionary command-directive and medical treatment requirements and believes his job performance and accomplishments exceeded standards.  Additionally, he states that he is not sure what the comment “Member unable to perform primary AFSC duty in the NRO” means; however, this was not a result of the DUI, but a result of his alcoholism, for which medical treatment was required.  His mental, emotional, and physical attributes have improved and is fit to resume his previous duties.  He does not expect to be downgraded for not accomplishing a job he was specifically not given the opportunity to accomplish.  He feels the actions taken as a result of his medical issues have been incorrectly mixed with his performance in his assigned duties and request reevaluation of the need for a referral report.  

The applicant’s rebuttal to the referral document was reviewed by the applicant’s additional rater on 25 Jul 12 and by his Deputy Director on 2 Aug 12.  On 3 Aug 12, the applicant acknowledged that all required feedback was accomplished during the reporting period and upon receipt of the referral OPR. 

On 24 Oct 12, a discharge board convened and recommended the applicant be separated with an honorable discharge.

On 12 Apr 13, the applicant’s commander forwarded his case to the discharge authority and recommended he be separated with an honorable discharge.

On 3 Jun 13, the case was found to be legally sufficient and on the 7 Oct 13, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant be discharged with an honorable characterization.

On 25 Oct 13, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and was credited with 13 years, 4 months, and 11 days of total active service.  Block 11 of the DD form 214 reflects his Primary Specialty as “62E3E, Development Engineer, Electrical/ Electronic, Years; 62E4, Development Engineer, 1 year and 2 months; 62E3C, Development Engineer, Comp Sys, 4 years and 2 months.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Based on the insufficient evidence provided and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the OPR, the contested evaluation should not be voided from the applicant’s permanent record.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report is unjust or inaccurate as written.

The applicant received a referral report rendered after receiving two LORs for driving under the influence and/or intoxication while on military duty.  The rating chain appropriately chose to comment and document on the underlying wrongdoing, which caused the report to be referred.  The applicant provided insufficient evidence within his case to show that the referral comment was inaccurate or unjust; therefore, the inclusion of the referral comment on the OPR was appropriate and within the evaluator's authority to document given the incident.  Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR as served to the applicant, the contested report was proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures.  Consequently, the applicant's appeal is without merit.

The applicant’s rating chain were in the best position to evaluate his duty performance, on and off-duty, during the contested rating period.  The applicant does not provide any evidence to substantiate his assertions that the evidence used to support the LOR was insufficient.  Additionally, no evidence has been provided that any of the administrative actions commented on the report have been rescinded or otherwise invalidated.  Therefore, the inclusion of the referral comment on the OPR was appropriate and within the evaluators authority to document given the incidents in question.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  We do not find his 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 his performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2015-02014 in Executive Session on 19 Apr 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				  , Panel Chair
				   , Member
					    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 May 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 Feb 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Mar 16.