AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02317 

AUG 2 5  1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  His general, under honorable conditions, discharge be voided 
and he be reinstated in the Air Force. 
2.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR) rendered for the period 
16 Jul 96 through 2 Dec 96 be declared void and removed from his 
records. 

3.  If the above is denied, he requested, on 25 Jun 98, that his 
reenlistment  eligibility  (RE) code  of  “2B”  (separated with  a 
general  or  under  other  than  honorable  conditions  (UOTHC) 
discharge  (not eligible for enlistment again in the Air  Force)) 
be  changed  so  that  he  can  serve  on  active  duty  in  the  Armed 
Forces (see Exhibit H). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

There  was  a  vendetta  against  him  by  his  first  sergeant and  a 
questionable  and  possibly  illegal  EPR  based  on  the  rater’s 
signature.  The  supervisor  who  wrote  the  report  in  question 
should not have written it.  The supervisor who wrote the EPR did 
not sign the performance feedback.  He did not receive adequate 
legal advice from his appointed military defense counsel because 
the advice was rendered over the telephone and not in person. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  four-page 
statement,  a  copy  of  his  discharge  package,  letters  of 
appreciation, and other documentation relating to his appeal. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant‘s Total Active  Federal Military  Service Date  (TAFMSD) 
was 8 Feb 95. 

AFBCMR 97-023 17 

- 

His  ratings  were  "4"  and  "2" 

The applicant had two Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPRs) in his 
(Referral  report), 
records. 
respectively. 
On 13 Sep 96,  the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) 
for  failure to  report  to  his  supervisor to  discuss a  returned 
check. 
On  2 5   Sep  96,  the  applicant  received  a  Letter  of  Reprimand 
(LOR) /Unfavorable Information File  (UIF) ,  for failure to  report 
to the Unit Training Manager at 8  a.m. on 23  Sep 96  in uniform to 
start remedial training on his Career Development Course  (CDC) . 
He did not report until 9 : 0 5   a.m. in civilian attire. 
On 2 7   Sep 96,  the applicant received a LOR for failure to report 
for a self-made physical therapy appointment.  He not only failed 
to show but did not let anyone in his chain of command know of 
his situation. 
On  1 Oct  96,  the  applicant  received  a  LOR/UIF  for  failure  to 
report to chemical warfare training at 8 a.m. on 2 7   Sep 9 6 .  
On  1 2   Dec  96,  the  applicant  received  a  LOR  for  having  a  get 
together of friends on 8 Dec 9 6   in his dormitory room.  A Control 
Roster  was  also  established  in the  administrative  disciplinary 
process. 

On  18 Dec  96,  the  applicant  received a  LOR  for being  late  for 
work, the third time in eight days. 
On 13 Jan 97,  the applicant received a LOR for the following: 

a.  On  6  Jan  97,  he  was  directed  to  perform  bay  orderly 

duties.  However, the dormitory was not in inspection order. 

b.  On  2 7   Dec  96,  he  reported  to  work  approximately  30 

minutes late. 
On  1 5   Jan  97,  the applicant was notified by  his  commander that 
involuntarily discharge action had been initiated against him for 
minor  disciplinary infractions.  He was  advised  that  discharge 
action  was  being  recommended  because:  Between  2 1  Aug  9 6   and 
6  Jan  97,  he  failed to  report  for duty eight  times, was  cited 
once for having guests in his room after 1 a.m., and was derelict 
in his duties on one occasion while performing Bay Orderly.  He 
was  advised he  had  a  right  to  legal  counsel  and  the  right  to 
submit statements in his own behalf.  Applicant consulted legal 
counsel  and  submitted statements in his  own  behalf  to  include 
letters of appreciation.  The case was reviewed by the base legal 
office  and  found legally sufficient to  support  separation.  On 
2 8   Jan  97,  the  discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant  be 
given a general discharge without probation and rehabilitation. 

2 

AFBCMR 97-023 17 

On 1 Feb 97, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
AFI  36-3208  (Misconduct)  with  a  general,  under  honorable 
conditions discharge in the grade of airman first class.  He was 
credited with 1 year, 11 months, and 24 days of active service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

- 

The  Military  Personnel  Management  Specialist,  AFPC/DPPRP, 
reviewed this application and indicated that this case has been 
reviewed  for  separation processing  and  there  are no  errors  or 
irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the  applicant. 
The 
discharge complied with directives in effect at the time of his 
discharge. 
The  records  indicate  his  military  service  was 
reviewed  and  appropriate  action  was  taken.  DPPRP  recommends 
denial of applicant's request to void his discharge.  He did not 
identify  any  specific  errors  in  the  discharge  processing  nor 
provide  facts which warrant his reinstatement in the Air Force. 
He was afforded due process as required by law and regulation. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application and indicated that the contested report was written 
in direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time 
it was rendered.  No evidence has been provided suggesting it is 
inaccurate or the result of an injustice.  In fact, the applicant 
provides a great deal of evidence that the report is an accurate 
reflection of his performance during the contested rating period. 
DPPPAB  further  states  that,  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter 
of  record and  it  takes substantial evidence to  the  contrary to 
have  a  report  changed  or voided.  To  effectively  challenge  an 
EPR,  it  is  important  to  hear  from  all  the  evaluators  on  the 
for 
contested 
The  applicant  has  provided  no 
clarification/explanation. 
information relating to the contested report from the evaluators. 
In  the  absence  of  information  from  the  evaluators,  official 
substantiation  of  error  or  injustice  is  appropriate, but  not 
provided  in  this  case.  DPPPAB  strongly  recommends  denial  of 
applicant's request to void the contested EPR. 

report-not 

only 

for 

support 

but 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application 
legal  standards 
and  indicated  that  the  misconduct  met  the 
the basis for the 
necessary to satisfy both the referral EPR and 
discharge. 
The 
administrative  separation  with  a  general 
in the processing 
applicant does not allege any procedural error 

3 

AFBCMR 97-023 17 

of his discharge or EPR.  Applicant's  challenge relies entirely 
upon an allegation that his first sergeant had a vendetta against 
him.  However, he provides no proof that such a vendetta existed. 
Thus, he  has  failed to meet  his burden of proving an error or 
injustice.  Notwithstanding, even if he had proven the existence 
of  a  vendetta,  the  misbehavior  evidenced  in  the  allegations 
supports the actions taken.  There is no injustice in discharging 
an airman  for the  offenses alleged, even  if  the  offenses were 
discovered because of  a personal dislike between the member and 
one  of  his  supervisors.  If  the  offenses  occurred  (and they 
obviously did), the end result was justified. 

JA further  states that  the  same holds  true  for the  challenged 
EPR.  The  ratings  and  referral  were  clearly  justified  by  the 
misconduct  and  it  is  irrelevant  how  the  misconduct  was 
discovered.  The applicant also raises a second issue with regard 
to the EPR:  an allegation that the supervisor who wrote the EPR 
should not have written it.  In JA's  view, he is in error.  The 
documents  he  provided  indicate  that  Senior  Airman  N---  was 
applicant's  rater.  JA  does  not  know  why  a  different  person 
signed  the  notification for  follow-up performance  feedback but 
that  action does not, in any way,  impeach the  validity  of  the 
EPR.  The only relevant issues are (1) who was applicant's rater, 
and  (2)  did  that  rater  rate  the  applicant. 
The  issue  of 
performance  feedback  is  a  judgment  call  on  the  part  of  the 
supervisor.  When the supervisor genuinely feels at the time the 
initial  feedback  session  is  scheduled  that  insufficient 
supervisory  time  has  elapsed,  the  supervisor  is  justified  in 
withholding  formal  feedback.  In this  case, however, applicant 
clearly had  ample  formal feedback about his performance  in the 
form of  two verbal  counselings, a  letter of  counseling, a LOR, 
and three LORs with UIF entries.  The applicant has provided no 
evidence  of  error  or  injustice  in  his  records  and  the  Board 
should deny his application. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluations and indicated, 
in part, that the documentation he submitted to request the EPR 
be  voided  from  his  records  is,  in  fact,  directly  related 
regarding  the  EPR.  The  person  who  wrote  the  EPR  was  not  his 
supervisor/rater.  The  initial  feedback  on  15 Oct  96  and  the 
official  entry  into  his  623a  shows  factual  proof  that  his 
supervisor was  SSgt T----, not  SRA N---- and  this proves there 
were errors and an injustice invoked on him.  He has proven the 
EPR to be illegal because of the rater's  signature.  The contents 
of  the  EPR  is  irrelevant  at  this  time. 
The  focus  of  his 
challenge is the illegal signature based on the documentation and 
facts he submitted.  This, by itself, is reason to void the EPR. 

4 

AFBCMR 97-023 17 

Applicant's  complete response is attached at Exhibit G. 

In a letter, dated 25 Jun 98,  the applicant requests that should 
the  Board  deny  his  requests  to  void  his  discharge  and 
reinstatement into the Air Force, he requests his RE code of "2B" 
be changed so that he can serve his country again on active duty 
in the Armed Forces (see Exhibit H). 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant's  contentions are duly noted; however, we  do not  find 
these assertions, in and by  themselves, sufficiently persuasive 
to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
We 
therefore agree  with  the  recommendations of  the Air  Force  and 
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  that  he  has 
suffered either an error or an injustice.  We noted applicant's 
request  that  his  RE  code  be  changed; however,  in  view  of  our 
determination to not void his discharge and reinstate him in the 
Air  Force  or  to  remove  the  contested  report  from his  records, 
this issue is moot.  In view of the above and absent persuasive 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 4 August  1998, under the provisions of Air 
Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

5 

AFBCMR 97-023 17 

Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 

- 

DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 9 7 .  
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 25  Aug 9 7 .  
Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 29  Aug 9 7 .  
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 1 2   Nov 9 7 .  
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 9 7 .  
Letter fr applicant, dated 2 8   Dec 9 7 .  
Letter fr applicant, dated 2 5   Jun 9 8 .  

Panel Chair 

6