RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04559 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and official military personnel records be corrected to remove the following: a. Letter of Admonishment (LOA), dated 19 Jun 13. b. Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 19 Sep 13. c. Unfavorable Information File (UIF), dated 10 Oct 13. d. Air Force Specialty Code 7S0x1 disqualification and award of a 9A100, Reporting Identifier. e. Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period of 16 Feb 13 through 27 Oct 13. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Commander made various arbitrary and capricious decisions that negatively impacted his career. She gave him a LOA, LOR and established a UIF; then relieved him of his superintendent duties and gave him notice of her intent to remove his AFSC. She had her mind made up before receiving any of his responses and those decisions were made in an arbitrary and capricious manner and demonstrated an abuse of her discretion. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Feb 95. On 19 Jun 13, the applicant received a LOA for violating an order or policy regarding his wife. On 19 Sep 13, the applicant received a LOR for moving unauthorized items at government expense during a permanent change of station. On 24 Sep 13, the applicant provided a response to the LOR. On 3 Oct 13, the applicant’s commander notified him of her intent to disqualify him from the 7S0x1 career field for cause. On 4 Oct 13, the applicant was notified by his commander of her intent to establish a UIF. On 9 Oct 13, the applicant provided a statement on his behalf regarding the establishment of a UIF. On 10 Oct 13, the applicant submitted a rebuttal to his commander’s intent to remove him from the 7S0x1 career field. Additionally, that same date, his commander established a UIF and filed within it his 19 Sep 13 LOR. On 28 Oct 13, the applicant was permanently disqualified as an OSI Agent for cause in accordance with AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel (officer and Enlisted), AFI 36-2626, Airman Retraining Program and AFOSI Instruction 36-2103, Release/Disqualification of Personnel from Duty with AFOSI. On 6 Feb 14, the applicant’s rater referred an EPR rendered for the period of 16 Feb 13 through 27 Oct 13 based on derogatory comments made in Section III, Performance Assessment. On 8 Feb 14, the applicant provided a rebuttal to his referral EPR. On 3 Mar 14, the additional rater carefully considered the applicant’s comments and concurred with the rater’s assessment. On 28 Feb 15, the applicant retired from active duty and was credited with 20 years and 16 days of active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While they cannot advise on the Commander’s decision, they were able to conclude the Commander followed proper procedures. After careful review of the provided supporting documents, they determined the evidence presented was completed properly and procedures were followed to administer the LOA, dated 19 Jun 13, LOR, dated 19 Sep 13 and UIF, dated 10 Oct 13. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIC recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. They addressed the applicant’s request to remove the Reporting Identifier 9A100 from his records and reinstate Air Force Specialty Code 7S0x1. The requirements of AFI 36-2101, Classifying Military Personnel, for AFSC withdrawal (disqualification) were met and the applicant’s 7S071 AFSC was withdrawn and he was classified as a 9A100 (disqualified airman). After a thorough review of the application, they confirm the AFOSI Commander permanently decertified the applicant as an AFOSI Special Agent pursuant to applicable Air Force policy. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIC evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. They will address the applicant’s request to void the EPR rendered for the period of 16 Feb 13 through 27 Oct 13 from his permanent record. The applicant received a referral EPR for the aforementioned period after receiving an LOA, LOR, UIF and being removed from his AFSC for negligent dereliction of duty and violating Article 92 and Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 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 AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System, paragraph 1.3.1 states: 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, Letters of Reprimand, 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. 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 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 LOA, LOR and UIF as served to the applicant, they conclude that its mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. The facts remain that the applicant received an LOA, LOR and a UIF and provided no evidence showing that these documents were ever removed. AFPC/DPSIM provided an advisory recommending the denial of relief to remove the LOA, LOR and UIF; therefore, they concur with their assessment. Based upon the legal sufficiency of the LOA, LOR and UIF as rendered, and no evidence that the punishment was ever removed, they find that its mention in the applicants contested report was appropriate, and as such there is no basis to which they can support removal of the contested evaluation. Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. It is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. The burden of proof is on the applicant and in this case he has not substantiated that the contested EPR was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Sep 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). 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-2014-04559 in Executive Session on 17 Nov 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-04559 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 23 Feb 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIC, dated 19 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Sep 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 15.