RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS. IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-01525 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 5 Oct 11, Article 15 for making a “False Official Statement” be removed from her records. Her Enlisted Performance Report rendered 1 May 11 through 30 Apr 12 be removed from her records. Her date of rank be back-dated and her subsequent promotion eligibility be verified for the promotion to master sergeant. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 2011, she received an Article 15 for making a false official statement; which, resulted in forfeiting $100.00 a month for two months, a grade reduction to Senior Airman (suspended), and being prohibited from promotion testing to Technical Sergeant. The Article 15 was the result of an investigation into another service member that was fraudulently using and then cancelling leave. This occurred on several occasions and the member’s immediate supervisor allowed her to cancel portions of leave. The applicant notified her leadership with regards to the members scheme to defraud the leave system. The applicant’s involvement was linked with a leave request that she approved for the same airman; which also was subsequently cancelled. The service member with the leave scheme was acquitted during a court-martial. The member’s immediate supervisor received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). The applicant received two LORs and Article 15. To date, she has never received any documentation actually reflecting she cancelled the leave in question. She also argues that she; herself was on leave from 23 - 26 Jun 11, when the leave in question was supposedly cancelled. As no time did she make a false official statement. She has always maintained that she did not approve the cancellation of any leave. As a result, she believes the Article 15, subsequent punishment and secondary affects was unjust and should be expunged from her permanent record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force, in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). On 19 Aug 11, the applicant consulted a lawyer, waived her right to a court-martial and accepted an Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), for dereliction of duties a violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). She received a reprimand and a (suspended) reduction to the grade senior airman (E-4). On 5 Oct 11, the applicant consulted a lawyer, waived her right to a court-martial and accepted an Article 15 for intent to deceive, sign an official statement which was false in violation of Article 107 of the UCMJ. She received a Letter of Reprimand, was reduced in grade to senior airman (suspended) and ordered to forfeit $100.00 a month, for two months. 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, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Unfortunately, because it has been more than three years from the date of the applicant’s Article 15, the original action with its evidence has been properly destroyed by the legal office at [her base]. However, it appears the Article 107, UCMJ charge for signing false official statement is based upon a statement that was made on a properly witnessed AF Form 1168, dated 11 Jul 11, which states, “I swear (or affirm) I have read this statement, initialed all pages and corrections, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.” The applicant’s commander then found that contrary to her assertion in that sworn statement, the applicant approved the cancellation of her subordinate’s leave, rendering the statement a false official statement. The NJP was found legally sufficient at both the Base and the Numbered Air Force levels. From the records provided, it appears the applicant was afforded all of her due process rights and the Article 15 was properly executed and legally sufficient. A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant contends her 30 Apr 12 EPR is unjust. After carefully reviewing the contested EPR, the evaluators make absolutely no mention of an Article 15. The applicant has not provided any substantial evidence which indicates the evaluator of the contested report wrote an unfair or impartial EPR and only presented her personal view of the events. Lastly, the final review of the contested evaluation was accomplished by the endorser and a subsequent agreement by the commander served as a final “check and balance” in order to ensure that the report was given a fair consideration in accordance with established regulations. Based on the evidence provided, or lack thereof, they conclude the contested EPR is accurate and were completed in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. They do not believe the applicant has provided sufficient substantiating documentation or evidence to prove her assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly, and has merely offered her view of events in the light that is most beneficial to her. 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 judgement at the time it is rendered. To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from all member of the rating chain--not only for support, but also for clarification/explanation. The applicant has failed to provide any information from any rating official on the contested report. The burden of proof is on the applicant and in this case, the applicant has not substantiated that the contested report was not rendered accurately and 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 D. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant tested for promotion to TSgt on 30 Mar 11 for cycle 11E6. She became ineligible for cycles 11E6 and 12E6 when she received a suspended reduction under NJP action and a referral EPR. She was selected for promotion to TSgt during the promotion cycle 14E6. The appropriate subject matter experts for NJP and EPR issues have reviewed the case and recommend denying the removal of the Article 15 and referral EPR. Based on their analysis and recommendation(s), no correction to rank or promotion eligibility is required. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28 Jan 16 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. The Nonjudicial Punishment was found legally sufficient at both the Base and the Numbered Air Force levels and the applicant was afforded all of her due process rights and the Article 15 was properly executed. In view of this determination, there exists no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the remainder of the applicant’s requests. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2015-01525 in Executive Session on 8 Mar 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-01525 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 12 Jun 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 23 Dec 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Jan 16. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 16.