RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03609
            INDEX CODE:  111.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (Referral) rendered for the  period  1
Dec 05 through 17 Aug  06  be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received the referral report because he  twice  failed  his  seven-
level Vehicle Operations Craftsman Course.  SMSgt E--- and Major  S---
tried to demote and discharge him.  He appealed the actions and  filed
an Inspector General (IG) complaint as he failed the tests because  of
his undiagnosed general [sic]  anxiety  disorder.   The  demotion  and
discharge actions were subsequently dropped.  He was advised that  the
contested report would also be removed from his records.  However,  he
was later informed that since the report had closed out, he would have
to appeal its removal through the correction of records process.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, copies of his EPRs, including  the  contested  report,  his
performance  feedback  worksheet,  supportive  statements,  and  other
documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate that  on  27
Sep 06, his commander  notified  him  that  he  was  recommending  his
discharge for failure to progress in on-the-job training  (OJT).   The
reasons were:

      a.  On 11 Mar 06, he failed to receive a minimum  passing  score
of 70 percent on the seven-level Vehicle Operations Craftsman  Course.
His score of 50 percent was well short of the minimum score needed  to
pass  the  course.   For  this  failure,  he  received  a  Letter   of
Counseling, dated 3 May 06.

      b.  On 10 May 06, he failed to receive a minimum  passing  score
of 70 percent on the seven-level Vehicle Operations Craftsman  Course.
His score of 54 percent marked his second failure on  the  seven-level
course.

The applicant was advised of his rights in  the  matter  and  that  an
honorable discharge would be recommended.

By memorandum, undated, the applicant’s commander notified him that he
was recommending to the demotion authority he be  demoted  from  staff
sergeant to senior  airman  for  failure  to  achieve  a  skill  level
appropriate with his grade by failing to  achieve  a  minimum  passing
score of 70 percent on his seven-level  Vehicle  Operations  Craftsman
Course on two separate occasions.

The applicant filed an IG complaint and on 2 Nov 06, the Deputy IG, 92
ARW/IG, advised the applicant that his  specific  complaint  regarding
unfair treatment and his discharge from the Air Force was referred  to
92 LRS/CC  (the  applicant’s  commander),  who  indicated  that  after
carefully considering the allegations and the information provided, he
decided to reverse the decision to proceed with the discharge  action.
The decision was based upon the applicant’s  medical  diagnosis  of  a
general [sic] anxiety disorder (Exhibit C).

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 Sep  04.   His  Total  Active
Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 23 Jul 97.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.

Applicant's EPR profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       7 May 99        3
      14 Mar 99        4
      14 Mar 01        3
      14 Nov 01        5
      14 Nov 02        5
      14 Nov 03        5
      30 Nov 04        5
      30 Nov 05        4
  *   17 Aug 06        2 (Referral)


* Contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP  recommends  denial  noting  that  statements   from   the
evaluators during the contested period were conspicuously  absent,  as
are statements from the raters confirming  the  applicant’s  assertion
the raters were willing to remove the report in question.

According to AFPC/DPPPEP, it is Air Force policy  that  an  evaluation
report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of  record.  To
effectively challenge an EPR, it is necessary to  hear  from  all  the
members of the rating  chain--not  only  for  support,  but  also  for
clarification/explanation.  The applicant has failed  to  provide  any
information/support  from  his  rating  chain.   In  the  absence   of
information from the evaluators, official substantiation of  error  or
injustice from the IG or Military Equal  Opportunity  is  appropriate,
but not provided in this case. In this case, the applicant  states  he
filed an IG complaint but failed to provide documentation from the  IG
to support his claim.  It  appears  the  report  was  accomplished  in
direct accordance with applicable regulations.

AFPC/DPPPEP  pointed  out  the  contested  EPR  was  rendered  to  the
applicant as a result of unacceptable  behavior  compatible  with  Air
Force standards.  They indicated that although he was diagnosed with a
general [sic]  anxiety  disorder,  his  squadron  commander  obviously
considered the failure to comply with Air Force  standards,  to  be  a
serious offense worthy of documenting in the his evaluation report.

AFPC/DPPPEP noted the applicant also  provided  several  memoranda  of
support from individuals outside the rating  chain  of  the  contested
EPR.  In AFPC/DPPPEP’s view, while those individuals are  entitled  to
their opinions of the applicant's  duty  performance  and  the  events
occurring around the time the EPR was rendered, they  do  not  believe
they were in a better position to evaluate his duty  performance  than
those who were specifically assigned that responsibility.   Therefore,
their opinions are not germane to his appeal.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  16
Feb 07 for review and response within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Medical Consultant recommends denial noting the applicant reported
to the clinic with complaints consistent with  a  generalized  anxiety
disorder and was given medication and a mental health referral  on  22
May 06.  He was seen in the Mental Health Clinic on  three  occasions,
after which he indicated he no longer needed mental health services.

According to the Medical Consultant, it is highly  unlikely  that  the
applicant’s generalized anxiety disorder  would  have  been  the  sole
cause of  his  testing  failure.   Many  people  with  anxieties  test
successfully if they are fully cognizant of the material being tested.
 Success in testing is a function of the ability of all individuals to
overcome their  anxieties  by  becoming  fully  knowledgeable  of  the
material.  There was no indication that his anxieties  caused  him  to
write down wrong answers consciously.  His anxiety disorder  may  have
contributed to his failure to concentrate, but this  could  have  been
overcome by meticulous study habits.  There was evidence the applicant
was found web surfing at work when time was to be devoted to studying.
 Additional distractions at home, as what might have been  encountered
by having five children under age five, would have  to  be  offset  by
devoting more time whenever available to study.  The psychologist  did
not state unequivocally that his mental health condition caused him to
fail his testing, only that it could  have  contributed  to  his  test
failures.  It is remarkable that the applicant could go  from  testing
failures for a generalized anxiety disorder to a successful cure  with
three visits over less than  three  months.   The  applicant's  record
indicated  other  instances  throughout  his  career  where  his  duty
performance and job skills were substandard.


The Medical Consultant believes the preponderance of the  evidence  of
record showed the applicant's condition did  not  sufficiently  affect
his ability to pass his tests.  In  his  opinion,  no  change  in  the
records is warranted.


A complete copy of the Medical Consultant’s evaluation is  at  Exhibit
F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to
applicant on 21 Nov 07 for review and response within 30 days.  As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant’s  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  his  assertions  and  his  supporting
documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the   rationale
proffered by  the  Medical  Consultant.   The  applicant  contends  he
received the contested referral report as a result of his two failures
of his seven-level test, and that the reason he failed was because  he
had an undiagnosed generalized anxiety disorder.  However, we are  not
persuaded by the evidence presented  that  the  applicant’s  condition
affected his ability to pass the test.  In view of the above,  and  in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume the  contested
report was an accurate assessment of the  applicant’s  performance  at
the time it was rendered.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation
of the Medical Consultant and adopt his rationale as the basis for our
decision that the applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of
establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling  basis  to  act  favorably  on  his
request that his EPR closing 17 Aug 06 be voided and removed from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2006-03609 in Executive Session on 17 Jan 08, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
      Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  IG Report, dated 2 Nov 05 (withdrawn).
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 18 Jan 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Feb 07.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Medical Consultant, dated 20 Nov 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 07.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair