RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-00014

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a closeout date of 30 Dec 13 be reviewed to see if he should have received higher marks.

2. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 30 Dec 13, be removed from his records. (No longer exist).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a referral EPR and LOR for what was perceived to be an inappropriate relationship.  However, there was no evidence of him being involved in an unprofessional relationship with a government contractor as noted in the LOR.  He believes leadership had a bias towards him.  He questioned the wording on the reprimand paperwork to find out why it was written in a vague manner.  He reached out to the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) for guidance and was advised not to respond because any rebuttal would make him sound guilty because of the vague verbiage in the LOR.  Three weeks later, he was told that he would not be testing for his next stripe.  He sought advice from the ADC once again and was told that the commander could make that decision at any time; however, he should have told him that at the time the LOR was rendered.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force.  He receive an honorable discharge with a narrative reason for separation of “DISABILITY, SEVERANCE PAY, NON COMBAT (ENHANCED).  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application due to insufficient evidence that prove he did not violate Article 92 of the UCMJ as stated in the LORs dated 20 Dec 12, 30 Dec 13 and 10 Feb 14.  Due to the timeliness of the DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, the LOR and UIF expired 13 Mar 15; therefore, no action is needed to remove the documents from his record.  The applicant separated on 25 Mar 16, which was after the expiration of the UIF and Control Roster; therefore, the UIF would have been destroyed on the final disposition date of 13 Mar 15. If the Board finds sufficient evidence to warrant removal of the LORs, no action is needed to remove them from his military record because they no longer exist.  However, actions to correct the applicant’s EPR to remove the derogatory comments should be considered.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends denying the applicant’s request to substitute the contested EPR.  The applicant has failed to document his evaluation appeal in accordance with the governing instructions. An applicant must provide convincing documentation in his appeal and it is his responsibility to offer clear evidence that the original evaluation was unjust or wrong.  Moreover, for the applicant to substantiate his case, statements from the member's rating chain supporting this assertion should be required. Accordantly, is determined that the report was completed in accordance with the Air Force policies and procedures.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 8 Dec 17 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 5 Jan 18.  In his response, the applicant contended there was no relationship between himself and the vendor since the no contact order was put in-place.  He was never read his rights prior to receiving the LOR, dated 30 Dec 13.  With regard to counseling sessions, his supervisor stated that he was counseled twice for maintaining professionalism, when both consultations were actually about religion and what his plans were when he finished with the military.  His supervisor also told him that he was on the phone to much and it was the perception that he was being unprofessional.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.   After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice with regard to his EPR. The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DP2SSM and AFPC/DP2SPE and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  While the applicant’s contentions are noted, he has not provided sufficient evidence showing the contested EPR is an inaccurate reflection of his performance and potential.  The Board concludes that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-00014 in Executive Session on 9 May 18:

	, Panel Chair
	, Panel Member
	, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 15 Dec 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 31 Oct 17.
Exhibit D. Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPE, dated 17 Nov 17.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 8 Dec 17.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 5 Jan18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.