RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-03493 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her Article 15, dated 16 April 2009, be voided and removed 
from her record. 

 

2. Her referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for 
the period 11 December 2008 through 10 December 2009, be revised; 
or, voided and removed from her record. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was unjustly accused and punished because of a minor incident 
regarding the completion of a patient screening form because she 
had been trained incorrectly by another airman who was not 
qualified to act as a trainer. In addition, there were no 
standardized training procedures and the Operating Instructions 
were out of date. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of her 
Article 15 (page 2 only), appeal of nonjudicial punishment, 
several memorandums for record, Medical Nutrition Therapy Adult 
Nutrition Screening forms, medical notes, excerpt of 59th Medical 
Diagnostics and Therapeutics Squadron Operating Instructions, and 
two character witness statements. 

 

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 airman as a Diet Therapy Journeyman. 

 

On 16 April 2009, the applicant’s commander offered nonjudicial 
punishment to the applicant for dereliction of duty, in violation 
of Article 92 Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
Specifically, she was accused of failing to complete a 
nutritional screening form for a patient at Wilford Hall Medical 
Center. After consulting with counsel, the applicant accepted 
the Article 15 proceedings and waived her right to demand trial 
by court-martial. She presented written matters to the commander 


but waived her right to personally appear before the commander. 
On 23 April 2009, the commander determined the applicant had 
committed the alleged offense. The resulting punishment 
consisted of reduction to the grade of airman first class (E-3) 
(suspended for six months), and forfeiture of $929.00 pay per 
month for two months. The applicant appealed, and the appeal was 
granted in that the forfeitures were reduced to $300.00 pay per 
month for two months. A legal review of the Article 15 action at 
two levels of command determined it was legally sufficient. 

 

The applicant received a referral EPR rendered for the period 
11 December 2008 through 10 December 2009. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
records, are contained in the evaluations provided by the 
appropriate Air Force offices of primary responsibility at 
Exhibits C, D, and E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denying the applicant’s request to set 
aside the contested nonjudicial punishment. JAJM states the 
applicant has not met her burden of proof showing that her 
commander, the appellate authority, or the attorneys who reviewed 
her nonjudicial punishment action acted arbitrarily or 
capriciously in determining that she was derelict in her duties. 
The failure to accurately complete the nutritional screening form 
had a direct impact on patient care and prevented a patient from 
receiving proper nutrition until the error was found. According 
to a nurse, when the error on the form was pointed out to the 
applicant, the applicant flippantly replied that they always just 
copy a patient’s old form when completing a new one. 

 

JAJM indicates the applicant fails to meet her burden of proof in 
showing the punishment imposed was unjust. The charge fairly 
alleged an offense under Article 92, UCMJ, in that she had a duty 
to fill out a new nutritional screening form, and her failure to 
do so affected a patient’s care. The commander did not impose 
the maximum permissible punishment and suspended the reduction in 
grade. Furthermore, after the applicant appealed, the commander 
considered the appeal and reduced the forfeitures by a 
substantial amount. It is clear the applicant’s issue is not 
with the process but the result. 

 

JAJM states there is no evidence the process did not work in this 
case, other than the applicant’s natural disagreement with the 
result. With her decision to concur with the commander’s 
decision to address the allegation in the nonjudicial forum, she 
necessarily vested the commander with the fact-finding power in 
the case. The applicant made the contended arguments to her 
commander and the commander did not agree with her. Neither did 
the appellate authority. 


 

It is JAJM’s opinion that to overturn the applicant’s punishment 
now would require the Board to substitute its judgment for that 
rendered by the individuals who had the opportunity to review all 
of the available facts. There may have been other factors 
considered by the commander in imposing punishment that are not 
part of the record, such as concerns over problems with 
completing accurate forms at the medical center ,earlier 
complaints about the applicant’s attitude, etc. Such a result 
does not meet the intent of the nonjudicial punishment set aside 
provision and is not warranted. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denying the applicant’s request to void the 
contested EPR. DPSID states the applicant did not file an appeal 
through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); however, the 
ERAB reviewed this case and was not convinced that the contested 
report was unfair or unjust. 

 

DPSID indicates the applicant’s allegations are merely personal 
opinions and unsupported allegations/conjectures about the 
motives of her evaluators, and do not contribute to her case. 
She has provided factual, specific, and substantiated information 
from credible officials; however, this information substantiates 
the very issue the applicant states was unjust. There is no 
reasonable motive to question the contested report since the 
applicant did not provide convincing evidence that the evaluation 
was unjust or wrong, or any evidence to confirm that inequities 
occurred. The applicant did provide a copy of her training 
records and mentions about not being properly trained; however, 
her training records transcribed on 6 May 2008 indicate she was 
trained in Performing Nutritional Screening. On 26 June 2008, 
she also signed off on her on-the-job training records certifying 
she was trained in this area. The applicant has not provided 
supporting statements from the original rating chain officials 
who can give specific information about the training problem and 
its impact on the evaluation report. The applicant provided two 
character witness statements from individuals in her work 
section; however, both statements talk about issues that occurred 
outside of the evaluation reporting period. Moreover, neither of 
the individuals was in a position to have firsthand knowledge of 
the situation; therefore, they could not provide a reasonable 
assessment/judgment. Although the applicant may feel that the 
evaluators have over-stressed an isolated incident or a short 
period of substandard performance or conduct, the evaluators are 
obliged to consider such incidents, their significance, and the 
frequency with which they occurred in assessing performance and 
potential. Only the evaluators know how much an incident 
influenced the report; therefore, the opinions of individuals 
outside of the rating chain are not relevant. An evaluation 
report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best 
judgment at the time it is rendered. The applicant has not 


substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith 
by all evaluators based on the knowledge available at the time. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the opinions by JAJM and DPSID. DPSOE 
states the applicant’s date of rank to senior airman, the first 
time she was eligible for promotion and consideration to staff 
sergeant (E-5) was cycle 09E5. However, she became ineligible in 
accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 
20, on 23 April 2009 when she received an Article 15 for 
dereliction of duty. She also received a referral report for the 
period 11 December 2008 through 10 December 2009, which rendered 
her ineligible for promotion consideration to staff sergeant for 
cycle 10E5. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant 
on 8 April 2011, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, this office has received no response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 
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-2010-03493 in Executive Session on 28 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-03493: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Forms 149, dated 4 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 27 Oct 10. 

Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 25 Feb 11. 

Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 7 Mar 11. 

Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

Panel Chair