RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00875 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from her records. 2. Her referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 27 June 2010 through 26 June 2011 be voided and removed from her records. 3. Her corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the Calendar Year (CY) 2011B and CY2012B Captain (Capt) Promotion Process. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. Her promotion to the grade of captain was twice rejected due to having an LOR/UIF for allegedly proving false information on her commissioning paperwork. Consequently, she received a Do Not Promote (DNP) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF). 2. On 19 November 2010, she was issued a Notification for Show Cause and on 1 March 2011, it was withdrawn. However, the withdrawl notification could have been given sooner than 1 March 2011, allowing her to be promoted and not deferred twice for promotion. 3. She was placed on the Control Roster for two years without a reoccurrence of the alleged incident that was subsequently withdrawn. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her referral OPR, LOR, Officer Training School (OTS) certificate, memorandums and various other documentation associated with her appeal. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in the grade of first lieutenant. On 19 November 2010, she was served a Notification of Show Cause. On 1 March 2011, after reviewing information provided by the Air Armament Center (AAC)/Judge Advocate and the applicant the Headquarters (AAC) commander withdrew the Notification of Show Cause. On 11 May 2011, the applicant was issued a LOR. Specifically, an investigation revealed she allegedly failed to disclose her 15 November 2009, civilian arrest on her commissioning paperwork. On 16 May 2011, she submitted written matters in response to the LOR. On 19 May 2011, the commander determined the applicant engaged in the conduct as noted in the LOR and concluded the LOR was the appropriate course of action in her case. In addition, the commander notified the applicant of her intent to forward the LOR to the 96th Air Base Wing commander (96 ABW/CC) for a determination on whether to file it in her Officer Selection Record (OSR). On 20 May 2011, the applicant’s commander recommended the 96 ABW/CC not place the LOR in her OSR. On 31 May 2011, the 96 ABW/CC determined the LOR would be filed in her OSR. On 3 June 2011, the applicant was notified of the decision. On 18 April 2012, AFPC/DPSIMC requested the applicant provide additional supporting information to substantiate her claim. Specifically, the AF IMT 1058, UIF Action. On 11 October 2012, the applicant requested her case be administratively closed until such time she was ready to proceed. On 29 Oct 12, the applicant submitted an addendum to her previously submitted DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 12 and requested her case be reopened. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the LOR from her records. DPSIMC states that a review of the applicant’s request reflects the LOR was processed in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File Program. The UIF is a file for documenting administrative, judicial or non-judicial censures concerning negative aspects of the member’s performance, responsibility or behavior The complete DPSIMC evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void and remove her referral OPR. DPSID states that the applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. DPSID states that the applicant has not provided any compelling or realistic evidence to show that the report is unjust or inaccurate as written. In fact, in her rebuttal to the referral OPR, the applicant takes full responsibility for the mistakes that she acknowledges to have made, mistakes that were commented on in the referral OPR she seeks to have removed. DPSID states that an evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. DPSID states that once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record. The applicant has not substantiated in any way that the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. To authorize the removal of this evaluation would be contrary to the evaluators intended purpose and would be an injustice to all other Air Force officers which maintain the high standards every day. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. DPSOO states that the applicant was considered by the CY2011B (30 June 2011) and CY2012B (30 June 2012) Captains Promotion Process with a DNP recommendation. She was nonselected by the CY2011B Process; however, the results of the CY2012B Captains Process have not been released. DPSOO states that based on DPSIMCs denial to remove the LOR/UIF and DPSIDs denial to remove the referral OPR, they recommend the Board deny the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By addendum, the applicant states that prior to entering the Air Force she was involved in a physical altercation. She was initially charged; however, after several continuances to plead her case, the charges were dropped and her records expunged. In 2010, when she joined the Air Force she explained the incident to her former recruiter and provided documentation regarding the incident. Unbeknownst to her, the recruiter failed to include the documentation in her application. She trusted that her former recruiter, acting as an agent for the government, knew what information to/not to include. She was advised to sign the paperwork verifying its completeness and veracity and was thankful to enter the Air Force. In 2011, after the Notification of Show Cause was withdrawn, she signed a Certificate of Service, dated 3 May 2011, noting the AAC/CCs request for discharge, dated 2 May 2011 was being withdrawn. However, she received a LOR for the exact same reason the Notification of Show Cause was given “falsifying documents.” The applicant contends her former recruiter was caught falsifying recruitment applications and relieved of his duties. While she cannot attest to the fate of others who may have joined through his actions, but the LOR she received directly prevented her from being promoted to captain and required her to be involuntary separated. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ 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 careful 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s numerous contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the evidence that the actions taken by her commander were beyond his scope of authority, inappropriate, or arbitrary and capricious. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 Docket Number BC-2012-00875 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00875 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIMC, Letter, dated 21 Jun 12. Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 14 Jul 12. Exhibit E. AFPC/DPSOO, Letter, dated 30 Aug 12. Exhibit F. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 11 Sep 12 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Oct 12, w/atch. Exhibit H. Rebuttal, Applicant, dated 29 Oct 12, w/atchs Panel Chair