RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00175 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, rendered for the period 22 Dec 05 through 21 Dec 07, be declared void and removed from his records. 2. His AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, associated with the aforementioned AF Form 475, be declared void and removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The contested referral AF Form 475 is unjust as it fails to comply with multiple provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. 1. The inclusion of the derogatory information was inappropriate. The AFI indicates that raters should be particularly careful about referring to charges preferred or other information that is not complete as of the closeout of the report; however, there was only a traffic citation issued at the time the report was rendered, but no substantial evidence to validate comments in the report related to his apprehended for driving under the influence (DUI). 2. The police report was not available until well after the closeout and his initial court appearance did not take place until 2008. As such, the closeout of the report should have instead been extended for the purpose of completing the action. 3. There was no referral memorandum as required by the AFI. 4. The evaluator failed to prepare an endorsement to the report indicating the applicant’s rebuttal comments were considered. Instead the additional rater, not the evaluator, inappropriately used an AF Form 77 to document this requirement. The additional rater also failed to indicate whether or not he concurred with the evaluator as is required by the AFI. 5. The reporting period reflected on the AF Form 77 is erroneous. In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel records, which include the contested documents, his rebuttal thereto, and correspondence related to his unfavorable information file (UIF). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of captain (O-4). The contested AF Form 475, dated 29 Feb 08, was rendered upon the applicant and Block III, Comments, contained the statement, “During this reporting period, Capt S_____ was apprehended for DUI for which he received a Letter of Reprimand.” On 3 Mar 08, the contested AF Form 475 was referred to the applicant by the rater by virtue of a referral memorandum. On 14 Mar 08, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action and, on 21 Mar 08, he submitted a rebuttal memorandum citing similar contentions to the matter under review. The contested AF Form 77, dated 24 Mar 08, was subsequently rendered upon the applicant. Block IV, Comments/Impact on Mission Accomplishment, included the comment, “I have carefully considered Capt S______’s comments to the referral memo of 29 Feb 08. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an injustice. Although the applicant contends there were errors in the processing of the AF Form 475, the governing instruction indicates that raters should describe the underlying performance, behavior, or misconduct itself and not merely the fact the conduct may have resulted in a punitive or administrative action taken against the member, such as a letter of reprimand, Article 15, court-martial conviction, etc. Therefore, it appears the rater/additional rater followed the guidelines prescribed by the applicable Air Force Instructions. While the applicant indicates the official police report was not available at the time the report was rendered, the applicant operated a motor vehicle while drunk, which occurred during the reporting period. The applicant was apprehended for DUI and received an LOR. This incident still occurred during the reporting period and the applicant has not provided sufficient supporting documentation from the rating chain, other credible officials, or the IG substantiating any errors to counter the facts at the time. Additionally, the applicant affirmed in the rebuttal to the referral training report that ”when looking at him in the whole person concept, you see a good leader and officer who made an error in judgment and will take the story back to fellow Airman as the voice of experience.” As such, the applicant clearly understands and acknowledges that he did make an error in judgment. Furthermore, he has not provided any information regarding the outcome of his court proceeding in order to possibly justify an inaccuracy or error in the subject charges during the contested reporting period. As such, it can only be concluded the evaluation was accurate as written. An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants its correction or removal. The burden of proof is on the applicant and he has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 29 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 warranting removal of the contested AF Form 475 or associated AF Form 77. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s contention there was no referral memorandum accompanying the contested report; however, in reviewing the facts and circumstances in the case, we note the applicant’s military personnel records include a copy of the referral memorandum, dated 3 Mar 08, which was acknowledged by the applicant on 14 Mar 08. As for the applicant’s contention the contested AF Form 77 erroneously reflects it was rendered for the period 22 Dec 05 through 21 Dec 05, we note the Air Force office of primary responsibility will correct his records administratively to reflect the correct closeout of 22 Dec 07. Therefore, in the absence of evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond the noted administrative correction. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2011-00175 in Executive Session on 8 Nov 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Jul 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 11. Panel Chair