RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02146

					COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His enlisted performance report (EPR), rendered for the period 2 Oct 06 through 1 Oct 07, be declared void and removed from his records.

2.  All records related to his permanent decertification under the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) be removed so he may pursue recertification in the PRP in the future. 

3.  His corrected record be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received the contested EPR and was permanently decertified under the PRP in the aftermath of the inadvertent transfer of six nuclear weapons to Barksdale AFB, LA on 30 Aug 07.  This single incident, for which he was not remotely involved, resulted in the reduced ratings on his EPR and endorsement at the lowest level.  He was never provided information regarding his alleged connection to this event and, as such, was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself.  The unauthorized transfer of weapons took place six weeks after he had departed the Weapons Handling Section.  He believes he was unfairly held accountable for events for which he had no involvement or impact due to the extreme political atmosphere at the time.  With regard to his PRP decertification, he was never presented with any specific factual information regarding the reason for the action.  Despite his repeated requests, the factual details of the basis for the action were never provided to him.  Without a specific basis for the action, he believes his due process rights under AFI 36-2104, Nuclear Weapons Personnel Reliability Program, were violated.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). 

On 31 Oct 07, the contested EPR, which reflects an overall performance assessment of “4,” was rendered upon the applicant. The EPR contains no remarks pertaining to the applicant’s involvement with the inadvertent transfer of six nuclear weapons to Barksdale AFB, LA on 30 Aug 07.  

The applicant’s EPR profile since 2001 follows: 

		PERIOD ENDING 	    OVERALL EVALUATION

		 1 Oct 01				5
		 1 Oct 02				5
		 1 Oct 03				5
		 1 Oct 04				5
		 1 Oct 05				5
		 1 Oct 06				5
	*	 1 Oct 07				4
		13 Nov 08				5
		 7 Sep 09				5
		 2 Jul 10				5
		 2 Jul 11				5
		 2 Jul 12				5
		 2 Jul 13				5
		 2 Jul 14				5
	
* Contested Report

On 14 Nov 07, the applicant’s commander notified him of his permanent decertification from the PRP due to a “classified incident.”  The applicant acknowledged receipt the same day and subsequently submitted a voluminous rebuttal, which included his own statement, a statement from counsel, and copies of his EPRs, awards and decorations, numerous certificates and letters of appreciation, and numerous character references.

On 21 Jan 11, the applicant requested his case before the AFBCMR be put on administrative hold, allowing him to gather and provide additional information (Exhibit G).

On 13 Apr 11, AFBCMR advised the applicant his case was administratively closed, as requested, and would remain closed until such time as he was prepared to proceed (Exhibit H).

On 7 Mar 14, the applicant advised AFBCMR he was ready for his case to proceed, and provided additional information (Exhibit I).  

On 20 Mar 14, the applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8).  
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.    


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice regarding the contested EPR.  The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  However, the ERAB reviewed the application and recommended denial.  The applicant contends that the events on Minot AFB, 30 Aug 07, in which six nuclear weapons were inadvertently transferred to Barksdale AFB, led to his rating of a “4” on the contested EPR. He submitted numerous character statements and awards (past and present), which included supporting documentation from the now retired former wing command chief that had contradicting information with the applicant’s 14 May 10 memo included in this application regarding him not being in a leadership role during the 30 Aug 07 incident.  The documentation the applicant provided has failed to provide any supporting evidence to show the contested EPR was an unjust evaluation.  Although the reference letters and awards paint the picture of a stellar career, AFPC/DPSID could only presume the applicant’s rating chain took the appropriate action at the time the evaluation was completed.  Once a report is accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal from an individual’s record.  The burden of proof is on the applicant, and he has not substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on knowledge available at the time.  

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

AFPC/DPTSF determined that the applicant has not exhausted all administrative avenues available to him reference reinstating his status in the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).  He must generate a request to be reinstated into the PRP accompanied by supporting documentation to his MAJCOM representative.  The MAJCOM representative will review the case, make a recommendation and forward the request and supporting documentation to the AF/A10, who is the final approval authority.  

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

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPSID regarding the removal of the applicant’s contested EPR, but provides information regarding supplemental promotion consideration.  The applicant’s total promotion score (128.25 EPR score (135 max score) + 277.50 board score (450 max score)) for the 09E8 promotion cycle was 500.25, and the score required for selection was 603.50.  For the 10E8 promotion cycle, his total promotion score (130.20 EPR score (135 max score) + 292.50 board score (450 max score)) was 527.20, with the score required for selection being 620.08.  Should the AFBCMR remove the report as requested, they should direct the applicant be provided supplemental consideration beginning with promotion cycle 09E8 in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant clarifies minor concerns raised by the AFPC/DPSID advisory (applicant incorrectly refers to the DPSIS advisory). He includes several character reference memorandums, supporting his request to remove the contested EPR.  Also, he addresses how multiple moral and legal mandates listed in various Air Force publications were not met, and how they negatively impacted the contested EPR.  He believes the additional information he provides will show how the nuclear weapons incident on 30 Aug 07 itself solely led to his lower rating in the contested EPR as opposed to his actual duty performance.  He believes the investigation and the newly appointed squadron commander took extended accountability beyond the scope of the individuals actually involved in this nuclear weapons incident (Exhibit I).  


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations regarding the appeal of his permanent decertification under the PRP.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the applicant’s EPR rendered for the period 2 Oct 06 through 1 Oct 07.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his rebuttal in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSID and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice regarding the contested EPR.  While the applicant’s arguments are duly noted, other than argument and conjecture, he has not provided any documentary evidence that would cause us to come to the inescapable conclusion that the contested EPR was not a fair and accurate assessment of his performance and potential during the period for which it was rendered.  As for his request for supplemental promotion consideration, in view of the fact that we determined that the evidence the applicant has presented is not sufficient to conclude that the contested EPR should be removed, we find no basis to favorably consider this aspect of his request.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought regarding this portion of the application.

4.  Regarding the applicant’s request that all records related to his permanent decertification under the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) be removed so he may pursue recertification in the PRP in the future, we are not convinced that corrective action is warranted in this regard.  In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  AFPC/DPTSF has reviewed this application and indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In view of this, we find this aspect of the applicant’s request is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-02146 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02146 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 10, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSID, dated 28 Dec 10.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Nov 10.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPTSF, dated 28 Oct 10.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11.
Exhibit G.  Email, Applicant, dated 21 Jan 11.  
Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 11.
Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Mar 14, w/atchs.