RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01526
            INDEX CODE:  134.02, 131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Air Force Form 475, Training  Report,  dated  13  September  2001,  be
voided, a new Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be accomplished  and
he receive consideration for promotion  by  the  CY02B  Major  Central
Selection Board, Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was unfairly accused of plagiarism while  a  student  at  the  USAF
Weapons School at Nellis AFB, NV.  He was eliminated in the 20th  week
of the 23-week school with reason given as “Failure to  Meet  Academic
Standards.”  He contends he was told he would  be  issued  a  training
report (TR), as a result of his elimination, which would  be  generic,
non-punitive  and  would  not  mention  plagiarism.   He  contends  he
received the TR eight months  after  being  eliminated  and  felt  his
situation was further exacerbated when he found out the TR was  placed
in his official record  without  having  been  referred  to  him.   He
applied to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to have  the  TR
voided.  On 17 May 2002, his request was  denied,  however,  the  ERAB
directed the TR be referred to him.  The TR was  referred  on  18 July
2002, ten months after it was accomplished.  The  applicant  responded
with a ten-page response he felt was hindered  by  the  then  yearlong
delay of the process.  He met the CY02B Major Central Selection  Board
and was non-selected.  He contends a briefer at AFPC indicated his non-
selection to major was directly attributable to the TR.

The TR is in error because it unfairly implies he committed plagiarism
and he was denied a  meaningful  opportunity  to  gather  substantial,
timely information to assist in the referral process.   He  feels  had
school officials believed he had committed plagiarism he  should  have
been punished for either making a false statement, conduct  unbecoming
an officer or for service discrediting conduct, with either some  sort
of Court Martial or non-judicial punishment such as an Article 15.  He
states had the school taken these steps he would  have  been  afforded
the opportunity to defend himself before a neutral and objective fact-
finder as well as being given an  opportunity  for  an  appellate-type
review.  He was not even read his rights when the school presented the
criminal charges against him.  On inquiring about his avenues to argue
his case, he was told by an academic adviser that  no  formal  process
existed for him to appeal.  Alternatively, he contends the school,  in
particular the commandant, held  investigations  behind  closed  doors
without the applicant’s knowledge, and provided  no  formal  or  third
party legal review of  their  findings  before  eliminating  him  from
training.  He asserts the commandant committed an egregious  act  when
he failed to recognize the TR should have  been  a  referral,  thereby
causing him to wait over a year before being able to argue his  appeal
and present statements.  As a member of the USAF, he should enjoy  the
same protections that we (AF) afford all service  members  accused  of
criminal acts.  He has learned the Weapons School has since instituted
a process to deal with  accusations  of  plagiarism  and  asserts  the
school, by doing so, has tacitly acknowledged the mishandling  of  his
case.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, copies of the  TR,  the  ERAB  application,  an  AFPC/DPPPE
memorandum, the referral memorandum, the HQ  ACC/IGQ  memorandum,  and
memorandums of support from BG --- and LTG ----.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving as a captain on active  duty,  with
the --- Air Force in --.  He began USAF Weapons School on  29  January
2001 and was eliminated in May 2001 due to failure  to  meet  academic
standards.  He was issued a TR dated 27 September 2001.  He applied to
the ERAB requesting the TR be voided.  On 17 May 2002, the ERAB denied
relief stating  the  evaluation  report  was  considered  an  accurate
assessment when rendered.  However, the ERAB determined the TR  was  a
referral.  The referral request completed the ERAB’s  action  and  the
case was closed on 13 September 2002.  He applied to  the  ERAB  twice
more, 13 September 2002 and 18 February 2003.  The second  was  denied
and the third was found to be without merit.   He  filed  a  complaint
with HQ ACC/IG that was forwarded  to  the  --th  Wing  commander  for
investigation in July 2001.  On 18 November  2002,  he  filed  another
complaint with HQ ACC/IG that was found to be too old for  the  IG  to
effectively investigate.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE “strongly recommends” that the Board deny  the  applicant's
appeal to void the TR.  DPPPE states  Air  Force  policy  is  that  an
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a  matter  of
record.  DPPPE notes no evidence has ever been presented  proving  the
statements on the TR were not accurate.

DPPPE’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed the applicant’s request for SSB consideration  for
promotion  to  major  and  recommends  denial.   They   indicate   SSB
consideration is not warranted in this case.

DPPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant argues a conflict of interest exists in  that  the  same
person who wrote the advisory addressing his  ERAB  appeal  wrote  the
DPPPE advisory at Exhibit C.  He is concerned she is biased  in  favor
of defending her previous decision on his ERAB appeal.  He then states
it comes as  no  surprise  that  DPPPE  essentially  reiterates  their
previous analysis of his case and that the Board benefits little  from
their current advisory.  He states DPPPE misunderstood his  case  then
and DPPPE misunderstands it now.

After a thorough review of the  DPPPE  advisory,  he  feels  there  is
little  concern  the  weapons  school  commandant  failed  to   follow
established referral procedures outlined  in  Air  Force  Instructions
that resulted in the referral TR not being issued for  nearly  a  year
after the TR was placed in his record.  He argues DPPPE  seems  to  be
satisfied the TR was eventually referred only and overlooks  the  fact
he was not able  to  submit  facts  and  present  quality  and  timely
evidence had he known the derogatory TR was  forthcoming.   He  states
DPPPE is incorrect in their statement the applicant  “…did  not  state
previously that he was told there would not be  negative  comments  on
the TR.  Only after the ERAB directed the report be referred did  this
accusation appear.”  He directs attention to the original AF Form 948,
Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, attachment 2
of his application, section 11,  items  6  &  7,  where  he  submitted
testimony the commandant indeed had  told  him  the  report  would  be
generic and would not contain negative references.  He contends it  is
significant DPPPE does not consider the testimony of an AF officer  as
constituting evidence.  Additionally, he believes his  statements  and
those of his superiors were seemingly wholly discounted because he did
not offer more, even though he was deprived of genuine due process and
the timely opportunity to gather substantial  evidence  from  possible
third-party sources.  He believes, as a result of the DPPPE  advisory,
the system is biased against him because it assumes he cannot possibly
have  a  valid  grievance  as  long  as  the  derogatory  report   was
“eventually referred.”  Without  completely  restating  his  case,  he
believes he should have been given genuine due process in the form  of
notice and an opportunity to be heard before a  neutral  and  detached
fact-finding body before any entry was made on his record  implicating
him in an alleged criminal activity.  He contends  the  derogatory  TR
would still be in his record today had he not brought the error to the
attention of the ERAB and just because the TR was  referred  does  not
mean all is now well as he has not had the opportunity to dispute  the
TR and was denied some  of  the  most  basic  rights  of  due  process
afforded by the Constitution.  He  asks  the  Board  to  void  the  TR
because it was first used, and then erroneously processed, to render a
verdict against him in such a way as to prevent him from contesting it
in any meaningful way.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the  case  to
include the fact the ERAB directed the TR to be  referred.   While  we
sympathize with his position and appreciate his  logic  in  presenting
his case, the applicant has not  provided  any  evidence  proving  the
statements on the TR are not accurate.  Consequently,  we  agree  with
the opinion and recommendation 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.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,  we
find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01526  in  Executive  Session  on  22  October  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member








The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Apr 2003, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 6 Aug 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated.6 Aug 03, w/atchs
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Rebuttal, Applicant, dated 7 Sep 03.



                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair