RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00745 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her tour in Iraq be added to her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (Administratively Resolved. 2. Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2X “(First-term, Second-term or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment)” be changed to allow her to reenter the military. 3. Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 22 Dec 10 through 21 Dec 11, be declared void and removed from her record. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The disciplinary actions taken against her and used to support her discharge were based on false accusations. During her career she was hazed and harassed by her supervisor and other flight members. She was falsely accused of sleeping on post and berating another airman. These allegations were used by her supervisor to get her put out of the military. She was punished for whistle blowing about the sexual harassment by her supervisor. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Apr 09. On 20 Apr 15, AFPC/DPAPP notified the applicant of their determination that she had “boots on ground” foreign service time in Iraq, from 22 Jul 10 to 15 Dec 10, for 4 months and 24 days. The amount of foreign service time reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214, is correct, therefore a correction is not needed. (Exhibit C) On 31 Mar 12, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, with narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service,” along with an RE code of 2X. She was credited with 2 years, 11 months, and 9 days of active service. The applicant’s EPR profile is listed below: Period Ending Overall Evaluation 21 Dec 10 5 *21 Dec 11 2 *Contested Report 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 D and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change her RE code, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was discharged on 31 Mar 12 under the Fiscal Year 2012 AF Force Shaping Rollback Program after serving 2 years, 11 months, and 9 days of service with an honorable character of service. The Applicant’s commander non- selected her for reenlistment on an AF IMT 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration on 21 Nov 11. The Applicant acknowledged her non-selection on 21 Nov 11 and rendered her intent not to appeal the decision on 28 Nov 11. However, the applicant did appeal at a later date, but it was denied by the group commander on 5 Jan 12. She acknowledged denial of her appeal on 6 Jan 12. In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the USAF, commanders have selective reenlistment selection or non- selection authority. The Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP) considers the member’s EPR ratings, unfavorable information from any substantiated source, the Airman’s willingness to comply with Air Force standards and/or the Airman’s ability (or lack of) to meet required training and duty performance levels. The applicant does not provide any proof of an error or injustice in reference to her RE code. The applicant should not be awarded an RE code of 1J “Eligible to reenlist, but elects separation,” as her commander non-selected her for reenlistment. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPR. The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. Additionally, it is worthy to note that the contested EPR has been a matter of record for over 4 years. The test to be applied is not merely whether the applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether through due diligence, she could or should have discovered the error. The applicant unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting this claim. She has waited 4 years to file this appeal and offered no justification for the extensive delay, as well as took no action on the claim before that. As a result of this delay, the Air Force no longer has documents on file (Base Personnel Information File, Unfavorable Information File, control roster, letter of reprimand, etc.), and memories have either faded or are not available. These factors seriously complicate any ability to determine the merits of the applicant's request. In short, the Air Force asserts that the applicant's unreasonable delay regarding a matter dating back 4 years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the factual merits of the applicant's position. The applicant received a referral EPR for “failure to perform duties of a sentry; caught sleeping while assigned to the main ECP-received LOR for actions” and “demonstrated conduct consistent w/core values; publicly berated Amn while on duty- received LOR/UIF” in section III Block 2 of the EPR. IAW AFI 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 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), or when adverse actions such as Article 15, Letters of Reprimand Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster have been taken. In this case, the applicant provided insufficient evidence within her case to show that the comments on the EPR were inaccurate or unjust; therefore, we contend that the comments on the EPR were appropriate and within the evaluator’s authority to document given the incident. Moreover, a final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished 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 on a total lack of corroborating evidence provided by the applicant and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of the EPR, the OPR recommends the report not be voided from the applicant’s permanent record. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In support of her request the applicant provides copies of her EPRs, a rebuttal of her referral EPR, and several memorandums for record. (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 to change the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility code on her DD Form 214 Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; or to void and remove the EPR with closeout date of 21 Dec 11. 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 (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. The applicant’s total foreign service was also determined to be correct on her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty; however, we note AFPC/DPAPP has issued a “boots-on-ground” letter to the applicant corroborating her time in Iraq. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief beyond that granted administratively. 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-2015-00745 in Executive Session on 5 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00745 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 20 Apr 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Nov 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 20 Aug 15. Exhibit F. Rebuttal Documents, undated. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 15.