RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03413 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NONE INDICATED APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and Control Roster be removed from his records. His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 5 October 2013 thru 3 October 2014, be declared void and removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was administered two non-judicial punishment (NJP) actions under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) within a two month time frame and he demanded a trial by court-martial. He proved all the allegations to be false. Nevertheless, even after proving his innocence, he received a LOR, UIF, Control Roster, and a Command Directed EPR. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 28 September 2004. On 30 November 2014, the applicant’s contested EPR was referred to him for a rating of “Does Not Meet” in section II, Standards, Conduct, Character & Military Bearing, and comments relative to him being given a LOR and its placement in an UIF for behavior prejudicial to good order and discipline. He acknowledged receipt and elected to provide a statement on his own behalf. On 4 December 2014, the applicant’s flight chief and commander considered his comments and upheld the referral report. On 12 August 2015, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with a narrative reason for separation of “Non-Retention on Active Duty,” along with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “LGH” (failure to meet minimum standards of service) and RE code of “2X” (1st term, 2nd term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment). He was credited with 10 years, 10 months, and 15 days of active service. On 13 August 2015, the applicant enlisted into the Air National Guard (ANG) for a period of six years. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the removal of his LOR, UIF, and Control Roster. The applicant did not provide the LOR as evidence. Instead, the applicant provided the Security Forces Summary of Investigation and two incomplete copies of his Record of Non-judicial Punishment Proceedings resolved during a trial by court-martial. The only determination that can be made is if proper procedures were followed in the administration of the action. However, without reviewing the LOR and UIF a determination cannot be made as to whether or not proper procedures were followed to administer the LOR/UIF/Control Roster. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his contested EPR. The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or inaccurate at the time it was written. The applicant contends the referral EPR should be removed due to the false allegations against him which resulted in the receipt of a LOR, UIF, and Control Roster. The applicant received a referral EPR after receiving a LOR, UIF, and placement on a Control Roster for behavior prejudicial to good order and discipline. The evaluators are obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and potential. Only the evaluators know how much an incident influenced the report. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 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, LOR, Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster have been taken. 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 insufficient evidence within his case to show that the referral comment on the EPR was inaccurate or unjust; therefore, the inclusion of the referral comment on the EPR was appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document given the incident. Moreover, a final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure that the report was given a fair consideration in accordance with the established intent of the current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR/UIF and Control Roster action as served to the applicant, its mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. Additionally, it is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all the members of the rating chain-not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from any rating official on the contested EPR. It is determined that the referral report was accomplished in direct accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The applicant has not substantiated that the contested EPR was nor rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 September 2015 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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-03413 in Executive Session on 12 November 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 August 2014, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 18 December 2014. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 September 2015. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 September 2015.