RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01468 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His enlisted performance report (EPR) rendered for the period 
26 Mar 2007 through 25 Mar 2008 be upgraded to the rating of a 
“5” or be voided and he be awarded two decorations, one in 
conjunction with his permanent change of assignment (PCA) and 
the other in conjunction with his permanent change of station 
(PCS). 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His EPR should be upgraded or voided because being accused of a 
crime and being guilty of a crime are completely different. He 
states, if he was charged with a crime and was offered an 
Article 15 or court-martial, he would have had an opportunity to 
prove his innocence. However, due to the fact that he received 
a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he was not afforded that 
opportunity. His medals were denied due to the rating on the 
contested report. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a copy of counsel’s brief submitted to the Evaluation 
Reports Appeals Board (ERAB), with attachments; a copy of the 
LOR, dated 29 Aug 06; associated email correspondence, along 
with additional documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving as a staff sergeant (E-5/SSgt), 
received a LOR, based on information disclosed in an Air Force 
Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI) report, that on or about 
29 Jan 06, the applicant was involved in a domestic disturbance 
with his spouse at their residence. During the disturbance, the 
applicant allegedly pointed a gun at his spouse and threatened 
her. The applicant’s military spouse also indicated that the 


physical abuse dated back to Nov 2004, which included punching, 
slapping, and choking her with a bag. 

 

The applicant’s EPR profile follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL RATING 

 

 25 Mar 02 5 

 25 Mar 03 5 

 25 Mar 04 5 

 25 Mar 05 5 

 25 Mar 06 5 

 #25 Mar 07 3 

 31 Dec 07 5 

 31 Dec 08 5 

 10 Jul 09 5 

 

# Contested Report 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant filed an appeal 
through the ERAB; however, the ERAB was not convinced the 
contested report was inaccurate or unjust and denied relief. 

 

The applicant was under investigation for an alleged domestic 
disturbance incident at his home of residence. The local police 
took no action because of conflicting stories. They also 
indicated that there was no evidence at the time of the incident 
of a family violence occurrence. 

 

The AFOSI conducted another investigation, by having the 
applicant’s spouse wear a wire and tape a conversation to prove 
her accusations of abuse and the applicant pulling a gun on her. 
The discussion between the applicant and his spouse failed to 
provide the evidence the OSI investigator was looking for. The 
applicant denied pulling a gun on his spouse. The applicant’s 
spouse later withdrew her request for the investigation; 
however, the interviews with the spouse’s family, friends and 
co-workers corroborated her accounts of what had occurred. 
After the investigation, the commander issued the applicant an 
LOR for his actions taken against his spouse. 

 

In the applicant’s 25 Mar 07 EPR, he received a rating of “3.” 
Based on the emails, the applicant’s rating chain wanted to make 
the report a referral based on the actions by the applicant that 
eventually led to the issuance of the LOR. However, it appears 
through discussion among the rating chain it was decided to make 
the EPR a non-referral report to allow the applicant an 
opportunity to test for technical sergeant (E-6/TSgt). 

 


An evaluation report is considered to represent that rating 
chain’s best judgment at the time it is rendered. 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. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In his response, the applicant notes that AFPC stated that 
either the local police or the OSI had any evidence of family 
violence. The interview of the alleged offense was based on the 
interviews of his spouse, her family, friends, and co-workers, 
who were not in the house, the day of the alleged incident and 
are in no position to corroborate any accounts of what happened, 
rendering their information as only hearsay. 

 

Since AFPC agrees there is no evidence to support a LOR and the 
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) he received, how can it be 
justified? He believes a LOR should be supported by evidence 
and written based on factual information, therefore his request 
for relief should be granted. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 and the evidence of 
record in judging the merits of the case. The applicant asserts 
that it is his belief that he was not found guilty of a crime 
and would have been able to prove his innocence, had his 
commander preferred non-judicial punishment. However, in our 
view, the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) has 
adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant and 
we are in agreement with its opinion and recommendation. We 
found no evidence the applicant was not afforded due process or 
that the commander abused his discretionary authority. 
Therefore, based on preponderance of evidence, we found no 
evidence that the applicant has been the victim of an error or 


injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence 
to the contrary, 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-2010-01468 in Executive Session on 2 December 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. AFOSI Report, dated 6 Jul 06 (withdrawn). 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 19 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair