RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2016-01954

						COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Derogatory lines be removed from his 2013 and 2014 Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF), and change rating to “Promote” with an effective date of 26 May 14.

2.  Derogatory information be removed from 2014 Retention Recommendation form, and change recommendation to “Retain”.

3.  He be returned to active duty.

4.  Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 23 Apr 11 – 26 Aug 11 be removed from his record, with the following bullets removed from all subsequent promotion and retention recommendations:

	Received ASBC Letter of Reprimand (LOR)--shot paintball teammate w/in “safety kill”--not truthful about it--inexcusable words/conduct;

	2nd LOR for failure to show for command directed appointment--capable officer--next report must show progress.  

5.  Referral OPR ending 26 Mar 13 be removed from his record, with the following bullet removed from all subsequent promotion and retention recommendations:

	Received Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for inappropriate behavior towards Labor Relations rep/LCAP inspector--removed from position.

6.  OPR for the period 27 Mar 13 – 26 Mar 14 be removed from his record, with the following bullet removed from all subsequent promotion and retention recommendations:

	Received LOR for inappropriate comments to subordinates & augmentees; removed from leadership position.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was arbitrarily and unfairly punished throughout his Air Force career, given discipline that was illegal.  After going through the administrative discharge process and non-qualified for promotion, his leadership did everything they could to prevent his promotion and retention.

His OPR closing on 26 Aug 11 references a LOR detailing an incident that did not occur as described.  He was truthful about the incident and was able to clearly demonstrate that in rebuttal.  He was also penalized for missing a command-directed appointment, which was illegal as it was not his commander that directed his attendance.  Once he proved he should be retained in 2012, he was told the derogatory information would be removed, but it was still in his file in 2014.

The rater for the OPR closing on 26 Mar 13, supervised the applicant for less than 90 days.  Additionally, he was not afforded the opportunity for training on managing civilian personnel until 2014.  He believes he was targeted for information he provided to his senator regarding actions taken against him by his chain of command, and he did not act aggressively toward the visiting inspector.

The derogatory comment in his OPR closing on 26 Mar 14 is false, as the evidence of his comments to a subordinate was all second-hand.  Others involved in the incident say it didn’t happen.  The statement regarding other comments by him were the result of misunderstanding, misremembering, and misinterpreting what he said, and was purely arbitrary.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 26 May 10, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.

On 9 May 11, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant was issued a LOR, by the Commander, 37th Student Squadron, for acting in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner.

On 29 Jun 11, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant was issued a notice of commander directed mental health evaluation, by the Operations Officer, 75th Logistics Readiness Squadron.

On 13 Jul 11, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant was issued a LOR, by the Director of Operations, 75th Logistics Readiness Squadron, for failure to report for a commander directed medical appointment.

On 14 Nov 12, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant sent an email to Senator McCain’s office, Subject:  Complaint Against the Air Force.

On 21 Nov 12, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant was issued a LOR, by the Commander, 75th Logistics Readiness Squadron, for conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and violation of Article 92, of the UCMJ.

On 4 Mar 14, according to documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant was issued a LOR, by the Commander, 75th Logistics Readiness Squadron, for on 27 Feb 14, telling an Airman First class words similar to “your wife is being unproductive because she is not pregnant.” And, on a separate occasion, telling an Airman words similar to “your mother must be an African refugee” because of the uniqueness of Airman's first name.

On 31 Dec 14, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge, and credited with 4 years, 7 months, and 5 days active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board due to his discharge from the Air Force.

The applicant contends his PRFs should reflect “Promote”.  In accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, paragraph 1.3, the Board will not consider nor approve requests to change an evaluator’s rating or comments if the evaluator does not support the change.”  The P0313C PRF, was marked “Do Not Promote” with the following comments:  “LOA in Nov 12 for threatening statements about potential union complaints and being aggressive toward employees” and “LOR in May 11 at ASBC for violating weapons safety rules/twice violating training ROEs and being untruthful.”  The PRF for board P0314C states, “Received LOR 9 May 11 for inappropriate and unprofessional actions during officer Air and Space Basic Course”, “LOR 13 Jul 11 for failure to report to the clinic as a result of a commander-directed medical appointment”, “Received LOA 21 Nov 12 for inappropriate behavior to Labor Relations rep/LCAP inspector – removed fm position”, “LOR 4 Mar 14 for inappropriate comments to subordinates/augmentees – removed fm leadership position”, and “Do not recommend promotion this board – due to inability to adapt, mbr is not ready to serve as a Capt in the USAF.”

In AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, it states, “Explain why the officer should or should not be promoted.  This section covers the entire record of performance and provides key performance factors from the officer’s entire career, not just recent performance.”  Paragraph 1.8.1. states, “In deciding whether to document adverse information on the performance evaluation, evaluators must consider the vast majority of Airmen serve their entire career with honor and distinction; therefore, failure to document misconduct which reflects departure from the core values of the Air Force is a disservice to all Airmen competing for promotion.” Additionally, paragraph A2.6.2.3. states, “Changing the overall promotion recommendation to a “promote” rating requires the concurrence of both the SR and MLR President.  Finally, the applicant had the opportunity to correspond with the promotion authority pertaining to the PRF and any other perceived errors.

The applicant states the OPR for the period 23 Apr 11 – 26 Aug 11 should be removed as he was truthful about the incident mentioned in the report, and he missed an appointment he should never have had in the first place.  He also requests removal of the OPR for period 27 Aug 12 – 26 Mar 13, stating he believes he was targeted due to providing information to his senator about previous actions against him.  And finally, requests removal of the referral OPR for period 27 Mar 13 – 26 Mar 14.  The applicant contends the comments he was accused of were false and/or the result of a misunderstanding, misremembering, and misinterpretation of what was actually said. 

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, paragraph A2.5.9. Alleged Discrimination or Unfair Treatment. Air Force members must report any form of discrimination to their supervisors or commander.  If you file a complaint late in a reporting period or after an evaluation closes, it may appear that you complained to create doubts about the evaluation's fairness and accuracy.  If you believe that you have been the victim of discrimination, your best evidence is an official equal opportunity and treatment (EOT) investigation, reviewed and validated by appropriate officials.  As an alternative, you may use statements from officials in the rating chain or other credible sources who have firsthand knowledge of the discrimination.  You must prove that an evaluator was biased and that the bias affected.  Furthermore, IAW paragraph A2.5.13 states, Personal Opinions and Unsupported Allegations.  Do not make statements you cannot support with evidence.  Your personal opinions will not convince the Board to approve your application.  Unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives of your evaluators, or how or why your evaluation turned out as it did, do not contribute to your case.  You must provide factual, specific, and substantiated information that is from credible officials and is based on firsthand observation or knowledge.  Statements or Memorandum for Records written by yourself on the events which you believe lead to the contested evaluation are not creditable evidence unless supported by another creditable official.

In summary, the applicant has not provided any substantiating documentation or evidence to prove the final PRFs and the referral OPRs were rendered unfairly or unjustly.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of error or injustice.

The applicant was selected for non-retention in accordance with Personnel Services Delivery Message (PSDM) 13-131, FY14 Officer Force Shaping Board (FSB), dated 24 Dec 13 (amended 22 Jan 14).  He contends his discharge was unjust and the result of his chain of command arbitrarily punishing him throughout his Air Force career.

The FY14 FSB considered officers in the grade of first lieutenant and captain in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 accession year groups (as computed by Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date) in specific AFSCs within the line of the Air Force.  Officers not selected for retention by the FY14 FSB board would separate not later than 31 Dec 14.

A review of applicant’s personnel records revealed he was selected to meet the FY14 FSB. The board convened and the applicant was not selected for retention and was given a separation date of 31 Dec 15 (sic).  The applicant had the opportunity to correspond by letter to the board to address any matter of record he believed merited consideration.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Other than his own assertions, the applicant presented no evidence of an error on the part of the Air Force or that he was treated differently than others similarly situated.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

4.  The Board also determined there was insufficient evidence to conclude you were the victim of reprisal in violation of 10 USC 1034.  Under the provisions of 10 USC 1034, you have the right to appeal this decision within 90 days of receipt of this letter to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)), Attention: Chief of Staff, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.  Your written request must contain your full name, rank, duty status, duty title, organization, duty location, and commercial or DSN telephone numbers; a copy of your AFBCMR application and final decisional documents; and a statement of the specific reasons why you are not satisfied with this decision and the specific remedy or relief requested.  However, your request must be based on factual allegations or evidence previously presented to the AFBCMR.

5.  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:

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-2016-01954 in Executive Session on 12 Sep 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01954 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 12-13 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Excerpt from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SPE, dated 23 Aug 16.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 25 Aug 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Mar 17, w/atch.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations regarding AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01954, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.