RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2021-03175

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED:  YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Correct her official military record to reflect:

1.	Immediate return to Active Guard Reserve (AGR) status, with no breaks in service.
2.	Extension to her Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) to allow for time lost.
3.	Retroactive promotion to major (O-4), with back pay.
4.	Coverage for medical expenses incurred while in Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) status.
5.	Removal of 2018 Officer Performance Report (OPR) and replacement with proposed draft provided by the applicant.
6.	Removal of 2019 referral OPR and replacement with proposed draft provided by the applicant.
7.	Reversal of all negative administrative actions taken against her.
8.	Award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).
9.	Her assignment of choice.

The applicant also requested the Board reconsider her denied Article 138 action.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She has exhausted all available administrative avenues to remedy the injustices against her, starting with elevating complaints of diversity issues from toxic senior leadership, to acts of exclusion, isolation, harassment resulting in retaliation, slander/defamation of character, abuse of power and authority, favoritism, and unprofessional relationships through her chain of command, Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD/IG), Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB), etc..  Air Force Reserve senior leaders’ failure to review the preponderance of evidence and an unreasonable amount of detailed conflicts between the Headquarters, Air Force Reserve Command Inspector General (HQ AFRC/IGQ) Report of Investigation (ROI) and Headquarters, Air Reserve Personnel Center (HQ ARPC) official documents resulted in her involuntary AGR curtailment which negatively impacted her military career (i.e. loss of AGR career status, promotion, retirement, etc.).

Written memorandums from HQ AFRC Developmental Team Board Presidents, AFR Career Field Managers, and HQ ARPC staff members, audio recordings transcriptions, text message and email communications, and additional sources of proof support her case and claims.  Supporting evidence also confirms major racial disparities that are substantiated in official documents.  It further proves HQ ARPC and HQ AFRC senior leaders, including HQ AFRC/IGQ investigative officers, lacked integrity and failed to meet standards in investigating her case.  DoD/IG senior investigators, a Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IGQ) senior leader, United States Air Force Academy Area Defense Counsel, her current legal representation, and other senior Air Force leaders agree there are major issue surrounding the investigation and have encouraged her to submit her case to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) for resolution.

She initiated a DoD/IG Whistleblower Investigation against HQ ARPC in May 19 out of fear that the Major Command (MAJCOM) IG office would not provide an unbiased review, which proved to be true.  Although the finalized HQ AFRC/IG ROI, dated 11 Dec 19, confirmed acts of investigative malpractice from HQ AFRC/IG investigation officers, and HQ ARPC/DPA senior officials failed to follow Department of the Air Force Instruction (DAFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, guidance, resulting in negative impact to her AGR career status, promotion to major, and military personnel record, HQ ARPC and HQ AFRC senior leaders failed to address the issues.

The ROI stated leadership failed to assign her rater upon her arrival in Apr 18 which led to a myriad of issues, to include: the job descriptions for her 2018 OPR, versions 1 and 2, are different; the OPR bullet format is not standardized; bullets from outside the rating period were used; a push statement from a senior leader outside her chain of command was used; she was not privy to, or allowed to review, draft OPRs before they were digitally signed by leadership; and her 2019 referral OPR reflects an incorrect duty title.  The actions and numerous errors in the OPRs are clearly unjust, do not reflect her true performance during the rating periods, were made in retaliation for her protected communications, and were discriminatory based upon her race.

Further, the HQ AFRC ROI conflicts with numerous statements in her involuntary AGR curtailment and other administrative disciplinary actions.  One of her chief complaints was the perception of racial discrimination and retaliation for elevating issues through her chain of command, the premise for the personnel action against her.  The ROI conflicts with the HQ ARPC 2021 DEOCS Survey, dated 14 May 2021, which confirmed “perceived inequalities in policies/promotion/discipline” among other issues reflected in the Air Force organizational culture regarding minorities similar to the facts presented in the 2020 United States Air Force Independent Racial Disparity Review.  Past and present ARPC staff members substantiate incidents of perceived racial disparities.  The ROI is riddled with inaccuracies and speculations as well as written to blindly support HQ ARPC’s narrative rather than objectively reviewing her complaint.

She attempted to resolve her case at the lowest level possible, submitting an ERAB application in Aug 21.  However, one of the key offenders listed in the DoD/IG investigation and ERAB application failed to recuse herself from the ERAB process concerning her case, and instead, she not only accessed her case, but also responded to the applicant.  Her involvement presents a serious conflict of interest and give the appearance and perception of interference prompting the AFBCMR action.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a currently serving Air Force Reserve captain (O-3).

On 9 Feb 18, according to Special Order XXXXX, provided by the applicant, she was assigned as XXXXXX, ARPC, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, with a report no later than date of 5 Apr 18.

On 6 Feb 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, she was issued a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for poor work performance, time and attendance issues, and disrespect.  The applicant provided a rebuttal response on 11 Feb 19.

On 14 May 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, she was issued an LOA for poor work performance, time and attendance issues, and disrespect.  The applicant provided a rebuttal response on 17 May 19.

On 14 May 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, she submitted a reprisal complaint via the DoD Hotline – Whistleblower Reprisal Compliant website. 

On 11 Jun 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, she provided a written response to the Privacy Act Investigator regarding the Privacy Act Investigation (PII Breach).

On 8 Jul 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, ARPC/CC issued her a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for poor work performance, time and attendance issues, and disrespect.  The applicant provided a rebuttal response on 16 Jul 19.

On 8 Jul 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, ARPC/CC issued her a No-Contact Order, effective until 30 Sep 19.

On 8 Jul 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, ARPC/CC issued her notification of Involuntary AGR Tour Curtailment, citing her inability to successfully perform essential job functions, failure to follow orders, incompatibility with Air Force standards, unprofessionalism, and attendance issues.  The applicant provided a rebuttal response on 24 Jul 19.

On 10 Oct 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, ARPC/CC denied the applicant’s request for relief under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

On 6 Dec 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, ARPC/CC issued her notification of Officer’s Right to Submit a Memorandum to the Central Selection Board (CSB), with attached AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, with Overall Recommendation of Do Not Promote This Board. 

On 6 Dec 19, the applicant was issued a referral OPR, for the period 1 Nov 18 – 31 Oct 19.  The applicant provided a rebuttal response on 16 Dec 19.

On 9 Dec 19, according to documentation provided by the applicant, she was notified the involuntary curtailment of her AGR tour was approved, and an effective date of separation of 9 Feb 20 was established.  The applicant appealed the involuntary curtailment to HQ AFRC/CC on 20 Dec 19.

On 9 Feb 20, according to Amended Special Order XXXXX, dated 13 Jan 20, provided by the applicant, her AGR tour was involuntarily curtailed.

On 10 Feb 20, the applicant was assigned to the Non-Obligated Non-Participating Ready Reserve.

On 18 Mar 20, according to HQ AFRC/IG memorandum, provided by the applicant, she was notified their investigation found her eight allegations of reprisal to be unsubstantiated, and she was provided a redacted copy of the ROI, dated 11 Dec 19.  Per the memorandum, both SAF/IGQ and DoD/IG Whistleblower Reprisal Investigation division reviewed and concurred with the investigation’s findings and conclusions.

On 3 Sep 20, according to HQ USAF/JAA memorandum, provided by the applicant, she was notified AFRC/CC denied her request for redress under Article 138, UCMJ.

On 3 Oct 20, according to SAF/IGQ memorandum, provided by the applicant, she was notified an independent investigator was assigned to address her request for consideration of the findings of the AFRC/IG ROI.  The complaint was dismissed in accordance with AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution, Table 3.13, Rule 6, and the matter closed.

On 26 Jul 21, according to HQ ARPC/DPTT memorandum, the applicant was notified of her second deferral for promotion, and an MSD of 1 Mar 24 was established.

On 25 Aug 21, according to HQ ARPC/DPT memorandum, provided by the applicant, she was notified her application to the ERAB was returned without action.

On 25 Apr 22, according to DoD/IG memorandum, provided by the applicant, in response to her request under the Freedom of Information Act, a redacted Memorandum for Record (MFR), signed by a Senior Investigator, Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations, regarding her request for DoD/IG-level reconsideration of the AFRC/IG ROI was provided.  Per the MFR, the applicant requested DoD/IG-level reconsideration on 3 Dec 20, via the DoD Hotline. 

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

Department of the Air Force Manual (DAFMAN) 36-2114, Management of the Air Force Reserve Individual Reserve (IR) and Full-Time Support (FTS) Programs:

Section 4B - Program Management – FTS
4.2.6. Commanders, directors, or equivalents are responsible for, but not limited to: coordinating on curtailment actions; promotion recommendation, demotion and continuation, initiating involuntary curtailments, management directed reassignments (MDR), and manpower actions.

Section 4D - Administration
4.4. Administration. Supervisory authority for FTS members shall correspond to military operational lines of authority unless otherwise specified.

Section 6B - Production Management - AGR
6.2.5. Collectively, HQ AFRC/A1M, HQ AFRC/A1X, HQ ARPC/DPA, AF/REP, and AF/REG advise senior leaders on personnel and talent management matters related to career management, force development, assignments, promotions, demotions, reassignments, sustainment, career status, and other personnel issues affecting the management of AGR resources.

Section 6D - Assignment Processing
6.4.1. Assignment actions are guided by selecting the best-qualified individual to support AFR mission requirements, while additionally supporting AGR career management and force development protocols.

6.4.9. Commanders considering involuntary curtailment are encouraged to consider use of all quality force tools available prior to initiating an involuntary curtailment.
6.4.9.1. Depending on the nature of the involuntary curtailment, commanders should consider discharge in lieu of involuntary curtailment.
6.4.9.2. In collaboration with HQ ARPC/DPAA (AF/REG for O-6), supported organization commanders should confer with their local JA offices to determine if an involuntary curtailment is appropriate prior to taking action. 
6.4.9.3. In collaborating with supporting force support units, supported organization commanders must notify members of the intent to curtail their AGR assignment in writing prior to taking action in accordance with Figure A2.1. 

Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force:

5.11. Effect of Twice Failing Promotion to Captain, Major, or Lieutenant Colonel. HQ ARPC reassigns twice-deferred officers according to AFI 36-2115, Assignments within the Reserve Components.  For twice deferred ANGUS officers, refer to NGR (AF) 36-4 for separation procedures. ANG State Headquarters separates and reassigns twice-deferred officers according to AFI 36-3209, Separation Procedures for United States Air Force Reserve Members.
5.11.2. A captain, twice deferred for promotion to major and not in a continued status, will be separated from the ResAF not later than the first day of the seventh month after the month the President approved the board report of the board that considered the officer for the second time.
5.11.4. Officers, who on the date prescribed for reassignment, separation, or transfer from an active status, as required above, are entitled to be credited with at least 18 but less than 20 years of satisfactory service for Reserve retirement, will not be involuntarily reassigned, separated, or transferred from an active status before meeting the requirements specified in Title 10 U.S.C., Section 12646. Officers who, on the date prescribed for release from active duty (other than for training) as required above, are entitled to be credited with at least 18 but less than 20 years of active duty for retirement, will not be involuntarily released from active duty (other than for training) before becoming eligible for that retirement, or as otherwise specified in Title 10 U.S.C., Section 12686.

9.2. Granting SSB Consideration. Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) or a federal court can direct an officer for consideration by an SSB. The HQ ARPC Director of Personnel Program Management (HQ ARPC/DP) can approve an eligible officer for consideration by an SSB based on the conditions below.
9.2.1. Grant SSBs, based on an administrative error, a legal or material error, or based on a formal appeal. SSBs consider officers for promotion to the grades of captain through colonel.
9.2.2. Administrative Error. An administrative error occurs when an eligible officer did not meet a board. If this occurs, the officer can meet the next promotion board convened that will consider the officer’s grade and competitive category.
9.2.3. Legal or Material Error. HQ ARPC/DPJ can direct an SSB for a nonselected officer, if the SAF, or a person acting on behalf of the SAF, determines:
9.2.3.1. The action of the board that considered the officer was contrary to law or involved material error of fact or material administrative error; or
9.2.3.2. The board did not consider material information that should have been available in compliance with pertinent Air Force directives and policies. Do not have an SSB if, by exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission and could have taken corrective action before the originally scheduled board convened.
9.2.4. Pursuant to Formal Appeal. The AFBCMR may grant SSBs when it determines an officer's nonselection for promotion resulted from an error or injustice in the officer's record. Barring extenuating circumstances, the SSB will convene and the officer informed of the results within 180 days of the finding of an error by the AFBCMR.

9.7. Promoting Officers Recommended by SSB. Promote officers upon Presidential approval and Senate confirmation (if required). Promote the officer with the date of rank he or she would have received if considered and selected by the original board. The member, based on his or her retroactive promotion by SSB, may be eligible for further consideration by selection boards, provided he or she meets the eligibility criteria.

Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 41-210, TRICARE Operations and Patient Administration, Chapter 2, Healthcare Benefits and Requirements:

2.2.1. When not in an Extended Active Duty military status (orders for greater than 30 days), TRICARE Early Mobilization or Transitional Assistance Management Program status; RC [reserve component] member military healthcare is limited. Refer to DoDI 1241.01 for entitlements.

Department of the Air Force Instruction (DAFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, Chapter 10, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations:

10.1. Purpose.
10.1.1. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board was established to provide Airmen with an avenue of relief for correcting errors or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level.
10.1.2. If an evaluation cannot be corrected under Table 10.2, an applicant’s first avenue of relief for correcting an evaluation is through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board, which is accessible via the vMPF/vPC.
10.1.3. An applicant’s second and last avenue of relief is via the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records by submitting a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Records under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, in accordance with AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Note: Applicant should exhaust all other avenues of relief (i.e. the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)) before submitting their request to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.
10.1.4. Retired or separated personnel are not eligible to apply for correction through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board; therefore, they must submit a DD Form 149 to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records.

AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records:

2. Board Responsibilities.
2.1. Considering Applications. The Board considers all applications properly brought before it. In appropriate cases, it recommends correction of military records to remove an error or injustice.
2.2. Recommending Action. When the Board determines an applicant has been the victim of reprisal in violation of 10 U.S.C. § 1034, or AFPD 90-3, Inspector General, the Complaints Resolution Program, it may recommend to the SAF that disciplinary or administrative action be taken against those responsible for the reprisal.

3.11. Authority to Return Applications. The Executive Director of the Board, or person delegated authority to act on his/her behalf, may return an application without action if he or she determines the applicant is not eligible to apply; the application is clearly frivolous; the applicant has not exhausted all available and effective administrative remedies; the requested remedy is unclear or is beyond the authority of the Board.

Department of the Air Force Instruction (DAFI) 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, Chapter 2, Administrative Counseling, Admonishment, and Reprimand:

2.1. Use of Administrative Counselings, Admonishments, and Reprimands. General officers, commanders, first sergeants, supervisors, and other individuals in the member’s administrative or operational chain of command can issue administrative actions. This includes issuing administrative counseling, admonishment, and reprimands to ARC Airmen who commit an offense while in civilian status.
2.2. Standard of Proof. The Standard of Proof for adverse administrative actions is the “preponderance of the evidence.” This standard will be used when evaluating the evidence and every element of the alleged offenses.  
2.2.1. A preponderance of the evidence exists when it is more likely than not that events have occurred as alleged. Preponderance of the evidence is not determined by the number of witnesses or exhibits, but by all the evidence and evaluating factors such as a witness’ behavior, opportunity for knowledge, information possessed, ability to recall, as well as related events and relationship to the matter being considered.
2.2.2. Consider whether such proof is available before initiating the administrative action. If such proof is lacking, administrative action may be determined legally insufficient and, as a result, could be set aside. There is no requirement to prove any allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
2.3. Verbal Counseling, Records of Individual Counseling and Letters of Counseling (LOC). Commanders, first sergeants, supervisors, and other individuals in the member’s administrative or operational chain of command will assist Airmen in developing skills, attitudes, and behaviors that are consistent with Air Force standards. Members of the administrative or operational chain of command will routinely counsel Airmen either verbally or in writing.  
2.3.4. Letter of Admonishment (LOA). Administrative censure for violation of standards which is more severe than a RIC and LOC. It could be used to document a first offense or address behaviors not corrected through counseling. Do not use it when a reprimand is more appropriate. For officers, if not filed in the UIF, an LOA must be filed in the individual’s PIF.  
2.3.5. Letter of Reprimand (LOR). Administrative censure for violation of standards which is more severe than a RIC, LOC, and LOA and indicates a stronger degree of official censure. It may also be issued when other, less severe methods have failed to correct behavior.
2.3.5.1. For officers only: Only supervisors and members of the officer’s current administrative or operational chain of command may issue an LOR to an officer. If the person who issues the LOR is not the officer’s unit commander, the person who issued the reprimand must send it to the administrative unit commander. (T-1). The administrative unit commander acknowledges and endorses the AF Form 1058, establishing the UIF or, if the member has an existing UIF, adds the document to the member’s UIF. (T-1). Include the member’s written acknowledgment and any documents submitted by the member in response to the administrative action taken.  
2.3.5.2. The AF Form 1058 does not need to be referred to the officer for a response because LORs for officers are mandatory UIF filings. The AF Form 1058 is used only to obtain the commander’s acknowledgment of the action (for LOR administered by personnel other than the commander) and to refer the LOR for file in the UIF.
2.4.3. The LOC, LOA, or LOR issuing authority, after considering any comments submitted by the individual, should inform the member within 3 duty days of their decision as to the final disposition of the action. For ARC members not in an active duty status, the issuing authority has 45 calendar days from the date of personal delivery or date of receipt of the certified letter to reply to the member (see Attachment 5 for a sample administrative letter).  

AFMAN 36-2806, Awards and Memorialization Program, Chapter 3, Military Awards and Decorations, Section 3E – Individual Decorations:

3.21.1. To preserve the integrity of Air Force decorations, they are only approved to recognize acts or services that are clearly and distinctly outstanding by nature and magnitude. These acts or services place a member’s performance clearly above that of their peers and be of such importance that they cannot be appropriately recognized in any other way.

3.24.7. No member is automatically entitled to a decoration upon a permanent change of station, permanent change of assignment, retirement, separation, completion of a temporary duty, or reaching or achieving other career points at which a decoration may be expected or customarily awarded.

DAFI 36-2110, Total Force Assignments, Chapter 9, Air Force Reserve (AFR) Selected Reserve Assignments Through the Grade of Colonel:

9.1. Assignments and Reassignments within the Ready Reserve. The AFR, unlike active duty, does not have a centralized assignment system to manage Lt Cols and below except for its full-time support staff. AFRC/A1 manages assignments/reassignments for ARTs and ARPC/DPA manages AGRs. For the part time force, assignments are driven by availability and member qualifications.

9.20. Assignment of Twice Deferred Officers.
9.20.1. Twice Deferred Officers. Officers applying for a position in the SelRes, separating from active duty or those coming out of the IRR, may request unit or IMA assignment through an AFR recruiter. The servicing recruiter will gather the required documentation and submit for quality force review.

AFI 51-505, Complaints of Wrongs Under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice, Chapter 1, Overview:

1.1. Purpose. This Instruction provides an outline of the process used when pursuing an Article 138 complaint. Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice, states: “Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon.”

1.3. Scope of Commander Actions Eligible for Article 138 Review.
1.3.1. Although there may be many instances in which an Airman believes his/her commander has wronged him or her, not all such occasions are reviewable under Article 138. For any adverse actions, there exists a specific forum and procedure to ensure a member has an adequate opportunity to be heard and the right to appeal the action, such as the right to appeal nonjudicial actions under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, to a higher commander.  Those specific procedures are generally more effective and efficient for resolving such matters.  The procedures outlined in this Instruction should must not be applied to substitute or duplicate them. (T-1). A petitioner has a statutory right to submit a complaint under Article 138 when his/her commander has taken action or failed to take action that is allegedly:
1.3.1.3. Arbitrary and capricious, or an abuse of authority; or
1.3.1.4. Clearly unfair or unjust.
1.3.2. The following matters are also expressly eligible for Article 138 review:
1.3.2.3. Administrative actions taken in lieu of court-martial or nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice.
1.3.3. The following matters are expressly not eligible for Article 138 review:
1.3.3.2. A request for reversal or modification of non-discretionary command actions. For example, mandatory adverse information filing in an Unfavorable Information File. See Air Force Instruction 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program.
1.3.3.9. A submission challenging an action that is not yet final, such as a respondent commander’s recommendation or initiation of an adverse administrative action.

1.7. Standard of Proof. The respondent commander is presumed to have acted lawfully. The standard of proof for the Article 138 complaint resolution process is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant did not exhaust all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board; however, due to the applicant’s contentions regarding conflict of interest, the Board chose to consider her application.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits and the multiple applicable authorities that specifically address each of the applicant’s requests and contentions associated with her requests, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant’s multiple requests for relief are based upon her contention that adverse personnel actions were taken against her due to discrimination and diversity issues within the work environment, and later, in reprisal for her protected communications raising these issues.  Based on the authority granted to this Board pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1034, the Board reviewed the complete evidence of record to reach our own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred.  While the applicant offers voluminous documentation in support of her requests, beyond the applicant’s opinion, and the opinion of others solicited by the applicant, there is nothing in the documentation provided that suggests personnel actions were taken for other than official purposes; therefore, her allegations of discrimination and reprisal remain unsupported by evidence.

Further, the applicant elevated her concerns through her chain of command, until they were reviewed by agencies outside of her immediate organization of assignment and the influence of the alleged responsible management officials, providing her with additional opportunities for due process.  Inspectors General at Air Force Reserve Command, Secretary of the Air Force, and Department of Defense levels found her allegations of discrimination and reprisal to be unsubstantiated; that the unfavorable personnel actions would have taken place absent the protected communications.  Without substantiation of her allegations, there is no foundation for the applicant’s requests for relief.

Finally, although there were errors identified in the timely assignment of the applicant’s supervisor in the official system of record, and in the unmet suspenses for her initial Airman Comprehensive Assessment and Officer Performance Report, they are administrative in nature and do not directly affect the content of the evaluations; therefore, do not rise to a level of injustice that requires relief.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-03175 in Executive Session on 27 Jul 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 28 Sep 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.