RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04176 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1.  The qualification for his records to be reviewed by the FY14 Quality Force Retention Board (QFRB) be revoked. 2.  His discharge from the service as a result of the QFRB decision to not retain him be overturned, and he be returned to active duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The QFRB decision to not select him for retention was due to an error and was unjust. He was unfairly placed on the QFRB roster due to a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he received under false accusations and was mistakenly placed on the Control Roster. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 29 Nov 10. On 23 Jul 13, according to documentation provided by the applicant, he received a LOR and had an AF Form 1058, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) established for domestic assault/communicating threats. On 24 Jul 13, according to documentation provided by the applicant, he provided a response to the LOR refuting the charges of domestic assault and communicating a threat. The applicant’s commander completed his AF Form 3538E, Enlisted Retention Report, section III, Evaluator Comments, stating; “Involved in off-duty incident/assaulted spouse; admin error placed him on control roster—QFRB not warranted.” However, the “Stratification” section provided the commander the option to select “Retain,” “Consider” or “Do Not Retain.” The commander elected the “Consider” option. On 5 May 14, the FY14 QFRB considered but did not select the applicant for retention. On 5 Jun 14, the applicant was notified by his commander that as a result of his non-selection for retention by the QFRB, a mandatory Date of Separation (DOS) of 29 Sep 14 was going to be established. On 29 Sep 14, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 3 years, 10 months, and 1 day of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the relief requested regarding the LOR, UIF and Control Roster. On 23 Jul 13, the applicant received a LOR and AF Form 1058 for domestic assault and communicating threats. On the same day, the applicant acknowledged both the LOR and UIF and stated he intended to provide comments. On 24 Jul 13, the applicant provided a rebuttal. In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, the person initiating a LOR has 3 duty days to advise the individual receiving the LOR of their final decision regarding any comments submitted by the individual. Additionally, IAW AFI 36-2907, commanders refer optional documents such as LORs to the offending member along with an AF IMT 1058 before establishing an UIF. After careful review of the LOR and UIF provided, the commander’s final actions were missing on page 2 of the LOR and section IV and V of the AF Form 1058. However, AFPC/DPSIM could not support the applicant’s requested relief of removing the LOR, AF IMT 1058 and Control Roster because of a lack of evidence. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the decision made by the FY14 QFRB to not select the applicant for retention. A review of the applicant’s personnel records revealed that he was placed on the QFRB roster as a result of negative quality indicators; specifically, a LOR and subsequent placement on the Control Roster. The QFRB convened to determine which Airmen were to be retained in the Air Force and which Airmen were to be separated. The applicant was not selected for retention by the QFRB and was separated on the mandatory separation date of 29 Sep 14. On or about 19 Dec 13, PSDM 13-125, (FOUO) FY14 Enlisted Quality Force Review Board (QFRB), was made available to all bases providing guidance/instructions to the Military Personnel Section (MPS), appropriate commanders and military members of QFRB eligibility criteria and application procedures, and milestones for required documentation to the board. A review of their records showed that there was no contact made by the applicant’s MPS or commander concerning a possible error to the applicant’s record that would preclude him from meeting the QFRB. Furthermore, the applicant had the opportunity to submit a letter to the QFRB by the suspense date of 25 Apr 14 for additional consideration and chose not to do so. The QFRB conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant’s entire record IAW the proper procedures and determined that the applicant could not be retained. PSDM 13-125, states "As such, records reviewed by the QFRB are considered accurate at the time of review; therefore, there will be no process for airmen to appeal the QFRB's decision. However, airmen may apply for relief IAW AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Separation or retirement will not be delayed pending a decision by the AFBCMR." Although AFPC/DPSOR stands by the decision made by the QFRB, they do recommend that the board consider the Evaluator Comments block made by the applicant’s commander on the Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form where he states “error placed him on control roster – QFRB not warranted.” A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPRs and argues that everyone involved in the QFRB process abandoned the Air Force Core Values, by not taking the appropriate actions to correct/acknowledge the administrative errors made with his personnel records that resulted in him mistakenly meeting the QFRB and subsequently not being retained in the Air Force. In support of his response, the applicant provides the following documents: 1. A copy of his QFRB Results notification letter. 2. A copy of his Enlisted Retention Recommendation. 3. A copy of his Air Force Enlisted Retention Brief. 4. A complete copy of his LOR. 5. A copy of his response to LOR (previously submitted with DD Form 149). 6. A complete copy of his UIF. 7. A copy of his ex-spouse’s 2 Sep 14 letter regarding false/fabricated allegations (previously submitted with DD Form 149). The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. 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, to include his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 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. While we note AFPC/DPSOR recommends the Board consider the Evaluator Comments block made by the applicant’s commander on the Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form where he states “error placed him on control roster – QFRB not warranted,” our review of the Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form confirmed his commander did state “an error placed him on control roster – QFRB not warranted,” however, on the same form, the commander chose the stratification option of “Consider,” instead of the option to “Retain.” In the absence of input or explanation from the commander that there was an error and his intent was that the applicant be retained, we must presume that the Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form is in fact valid as written. Under the presumption of regularity in the conduct of government affairs dictates that, absent evidence to the contrary, it should be presumed that the decision of the applicant’s non-selection for retention made by the Quality Force Retention Board (QFRB) was appropriate to the circumstances and was carried out in accordance with the governing regulations and the commander’s intent. 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-2014-04176 in Executive Session on 14 Jul 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04176 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 24 Nov 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR dated 30 Dec 14. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 15. Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 15