RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00174
			COUNSEL:  NONE
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a close out date of 
2 Jun 11 be voided. (Administratively corrected)

Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 25 Apr 11, be dismissed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was never allowed to provide a rebuttal for the LOR.  The LOR 
was in direct violation of her Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act since it discusses personal medical conditions.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 Apr 93, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force and is 
currently serving in the grade of senior master sergeant.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID determined the relief sought by the applicant was 
resolved through pertinent administrative procedures.  Based on 
the evidence provided, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) 
approved the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPR for 
the inclusive period 7 Dec 10 to 2 Jun 11.  An AF Form 77, Letter 
of Evaluation, was added to the Automated Records Management 
System (ARMS).  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove 
the LOR due to the lack of evidence provided by the applicant.  
IAW AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, 
paragraph 3.5, “Administer a counseling, admonition, or reprimand, 
verbally or in writing.  If written, the letter states:  What the 
member did or failed to do, citing specific incidents and their 
dates, what improvement is expected, that further deviation may 
result in more severe action.  That the individual has 3 duty days 
to submit rebuttal documents for consideration by the initiator.  
The person who initiates the Record of Individual Counseling 
(RIC), Letter of Counseling (LOC), Letter of Admonishment (LOA) or 
LOR has 3 duty days to advise the individual of their final 
decision regarding any comments submitted by the individual.  The 
person who initiates a RIC/LOC, LOA, or LOR may send it to the 
member’s commander or superiors for information, action, or for 
their approval for file in the UIF or Personal Information File.  
Include the member’s written acknowledgment and any documents 
submitted by the member.”  

DPSIM can only discuss if proper procedures were followed in the 
administration of the action.  The applicant provided an 
incomplete LOR, which does not prove it was completed improperly.  
Nor does the applicant provide any other evidence (e.g. witness 
statement, the rebuttal she claims she wasn’t afforded to write) 
that states it was not completed.  All DPSIM has is what the 
applicant claims and no hard evidence to support her claim.    

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant amended her request to ask that her EPR for period 
ending 2 June 2012 be changed to reflect a senior rater 
endorsement.  

In further support of her request the applicant provides a letter 
from her former deputy commander stating that based on the 
AFBMCR’s decision that the previous administrative action taken 
was unjust and the 2 Jun 11 Referral Report has been removed from 
her records, he now supports the applicant receiving a Senior 
Rater Endorsement in Section VIII Final Evaluator's Position on 
the AF FORM 911 for her June 2012 EPR.

The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Although the applicant requests that her EPR for the period 
ending 2 Jun 12, be changed to reflect a senior rater endorsement, 
she has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or 
regulations.  This Board is the highest administrative level of 
appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first 
exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by 
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this 
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  In 
view of this, we find this portion of the application is not ripe 
for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate 
level of appeal (ERAB) that has not first been depleted.  
Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought in this portion of her application.
2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant 
dismissing the LOR.  We took 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 the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain 
her burden of proof of either an error or an injustice.  Should 
the applicant provide additional documentation such as the 
completed LOR and or witness statements, we may be willing to 
reconsider her request.  In view of the above and in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend 
granting the relief sought. 


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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00174 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 4 Mar 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIE, dated 27 Oct 14.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Dec 14.