RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00060
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 5 Jul  02
through 9 Apr 03 be declared void and removed from his records.

The AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, rendered for the period 26
Jul 02 through 24 Oct  02  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

(Examiner’s Note:  Although not specifically stated,  it  appears  the
applicant wants the AF Form 475 to be  voided  and  removed  from  his
records).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

(DD Form 149 dtd 21 Dec 04 - A1)

He had previously served on active duty and in the Air  Force  Reserve
but  had  been  completely  inactive  for  over  nine   years   before
voluntarily returning to active duty in 2001.  He never  received  any
officer refresher training prior to  being  assigned  to  Nellis  AFB,
which  was  detrimental  to  his  success.   His  previous  Air  Force
experience was in a much different work environment.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A1.

(DD Form 149 dtd 1 Aug 05 – A2)

The United States Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) did
not follow disenrollment procedures in that Section IV of the  USAFSAM
Form 1, Record of Administrative Action,  dated  24  Oct  02  was  not
completed, and that there is,  therefore,  no  evidence  he  was  ever
administratively disenrolled from the course.

The USAFSAM Form 1 was completed incorrectly.

He was not referred to the Education Support Division prior  to  being
dismissed from the course and was told to leave USAFSAM after  signing
the USAFSAM Form 1 without being disqualified.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A2.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available  military  personnel  records  indicate  he  was
appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 20 May 82,
and he was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 20  Oct  82.
He was honorably released from active duty on 23 Sep 86 in  the  grade
of captain and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.

He was assigned to the Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS) on
1 Jul 94 and removed from ISLRS on 30 Jan  01.   He  was  appointed  a
captain, Air Force Reserve, on 31 Jan 01.

Applicant was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 6 Mar 01.


A USAFSAM Form 1,  dated  24  Oct  02,  indicates  the  applicant  was
administratively disenrolled  from  the  Bioenvironmental  Engineering
Officer Course based on his demonstrated inability to adapt or display
the necessary physical, psychological, or personality  traits  desired
or required for completion of a course.  However, Section  IV  (Action
by Approving Official) of the USAFSAM Form 1 was not completed.

He was honorably discharged on 30 Jun 03 under the provisions  of  AFI
36-3207 (Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion) in the grade of captain.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  2001
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      20 Nov 01  Meets Standards
       4 Jul 02  Meets Standards
  *   9 Apr 03                      Meets Standards (Referral)

* Contested Report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial indicating that while the  applicant  may
have been at a slight disadvantage  over  his  peers  coming  back  on
active duty after being completely inactive for over  nine  years,  it
was up to him to take the necessary  steps  to  attain  the  knowledge
personally and  professionally  for  successful  growth.   Applicant's
referral report was generated by the actions he chose to  take  (i.e.,
was administratively disenrolled from the Bioenvironmental Engineering
Officer Course for inappropriate conduct) not due to the fact  he  had
just come back on active duty.  Applicant's referral report as written
is in compliance with all applicable standards in accordance with  the
governing instruction.  While the applicant does not  agree  with  the
evaluator's choice of verbiage/comments on his performance report,  he
was not charged with assessing his own performance.  He had the option
at the time he was served the referral memorandum/report to provide  a
rebuttal to his evaluators stating why he felt the report was  unjust,
but chose not to provide any statements.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating  that  the  USAFSAM  Form  1  shows  no  evidence  he   was
administratively disenrolled because Section IV was not completed.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAA recommended denial  indicating  that  they  were  able  to
obtain documents which detailed the applicant’s underlying  misconduct
which led to  his  dismissal  from  the  Bioenvironmental  Engineering
Officer Course.  While they did not contain the  applicant’s  approved
administrative  disenrollment  from  the  course,  the  Board   should
consider  and  assign  them  their  appropriate   value   during   its
deliberation.  According to HQ USAF/JAA, the applicant did not  refute
any of the substantive comments made in the Record  of  Administrative
Action (USAFSAM Form  1)  or  the  OPR  comments.   For  example,  the
applicant failed to respond  or  provide  evidence  that  he  met  the
Bioenvironmental Engineering  Officer  Course  academic  requirements,
demonstrated good officership,  possessed  professionalism,  etc.   If
these comments were untrue, surely the applicant would eagerly provide
such evidence to the Board to meet his burden of proof.  In  addition,
the Board should also consider the applicant was provided the referral
performance report and given the opportunity to comment and rebut  it,
yet he inexplicably elected not to provide  comments  or  rebuttal  as
indicated in Block VII  (Additional  Rater  Overall  Assessment).   In
their opinion, the applicant had failed to demonstrate  the  existence
of  any  error  or  present  facts  and  circumstances  supporting  an
injustice.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation was forwarded to applicant on  26
Jul 05 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFSAM/CC   recommended   denial    noting    the    applicant    was
administratively disenrolled  from  the  Bioenvironmental  Engineering
Officer  Course  on  24  Oct  02  in  accordance  with  the  governing
instruction.  The  behaviors  he  exhibited  during  the  course  were
consistent with the  cited  paragraphs  and  were  documented  in  his
student administrative file, USAFSAM Form 1,  and  the  AF  Form  475.
They  indicated  that  although  the  USAFSAM  Form  1  contained   an
administrative  error  where  the  Chair,  Department   of   Aerospace
Education and Training signed, it still  showed  the  person  in  that
position coordinated and approved the disenrollment.   Therefore,  the
AF Form 475 (Education/Training Report) was not marked  in  error  and
should not be changed.

A complete copy of the USAFSAM/CC evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the USAFSAM/CC evaluation was forwarded to applicant  on  17
Oct 05 for review and response.  By  letter,  dated  28  Nov  05,  the
applicant requested his cases be temporarily  withdrawn  (Exhibit  J).
By letter, dated 6  Dec  05,  the  applicant  was  notified  that  his
applications had been temporarily withdrawn and  would  remain  closed
until such time as he indicated he was prepared  to  proceed  (Exhibit
K).

Applicant provided a response, dated 5 Dec 05, which was prior to  his
receipt of notification that his cases had been withdrawn,  indicating
he did not agree with the comments in the advisory opinions, and  that
some of the statements are  false  or  misleading  but  he  lacks  the
necessary evidence to refute them.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

Applicant provided an additional response,  dated  22  Dec  05,  again
alleging   appropriate   procedures   were   not   followed   in   his
disenrollment, which is attached at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

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;
however, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs)  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has suffered either an
error or injustice.  No evidence has been presented which has shown to
our satisfaction the applicant’s OPR closing 9  Apr  03  and  training
report  closing  24  Oct  02  (AF  Form  475)   contained   inaccurate
assessments of his  performance.   We  also  do  not  find  sufficient
evidence   he   was   not   appropriately   disenrolled    from    the
Bioenvironmental Engineering Officer Course.  While  we  note  USAFSAM
Form 1 contained an administrative error where the  Chair,  Department
of Aerospace Education and Training signed as the  indorsing  official
rather than the approving official, it still reflected her  intent  to
approve the applicant’s disenrollment.  Therefore, in our  view,  this
was a harmless error.  In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of
sufficient 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-
2005-00060 in Executive Session on 12 Jan 06, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
      Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
      Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 21 Dec 04 and 1 Aug 05,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 29 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAA, dated 19 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jul 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, USAFSAM/CC, dated 13 Oct 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 05.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, applicant, dated 28 Nov 05.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Dec 05.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, applicant, dated 5 Dec 05.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, applicant, dated 22 Dec 05.




                                   LAURENCE M. GRONER
                                   Panel Chair