RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03495 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The following be removed from his military records: 

 

 a. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 15 Dec 09. 

 

 b. His Unfavorable Information File (UIF). 

 

 c. He be removed from the Control Roster. 

 

 d. His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR). 

 

In addition, he would like his line number to staff sergeant (E-
5) be reinstated. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His punishments were unjustified. While assigned to the Airman 
Leadership School as a student, he was charged for drinking 
during a 6-ring standby for a Combat Capability Exercise. In 
accordance with the governing instructions, “Faculty and students 
will be considered unavailable for additional duties and/or 
exercise participation (as if TDY away from home station) 
throughout the course from start date to graduation.” After 
reviewing all facts in his case, the Inspector General (IG) found 
in his favor. He would like another review of his records to see 
if an injustice occurred. If so, he would like his records 
corrected and all derogatory paperwork be removed from his 
records. Furthermore, he requests his line number to staff 
sergeant be reinstated and he be allowed to attend Airman Leader 
School (ALS) in order to complete the training required to be 
promoted. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a 
90 MW/IG letter and an excerpt from AFI 36-2301. 

 

His 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 (E-4). 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant has not 
identified an error. The LOR, UIF, and Control Roster, were not 
based on the violation of a lawful order, but that of the 
applicant’s reliance on rumor and failure to seek clarification 
before consuming alcohol. The referral EPR was based on the 
applicant’s removal from training due to discipline issues; not 
violation of an order. JA points out that commanders have 
discretion in deciding whether to issue a reprimand, establish a 
UIF, place a member on the Control Roster, or make referral 
ratings or comments on an EPR. Although the cumulative result of 
the actions in this case may seem fairly severe or harsh, all 
actions were permissible and within the discretion of the 
commander’s authority. 

 

The JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. DPSID states the applicant did not 
submit an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board 
(ERAB); however, the ERAB reviewed the application and was not 
convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and 
disapproved the applicant’s request. DPSID notes the letter from 
the IG states that on the first day of ALS Class 10B, the ALS 
Commandant briefed the students that while they attended ALS they 
were not on 6-ring standby from their units; however, they still 
had to follow the lawful order not to drink any alcoholic 
beverages. In addition, the IG opined the order not to drink 
alcoholic beverages while attending ALS may not be considered a 
lawful order unless the order was issued due to mission 
requirement; however, attending ALS is a mission requirement. 
Therefore, the report in question is valid and is not in 
violation of the governing instructions. In this case, the 
applicant has failed to provide any information or support from 
his rating chain. Although the applicant provides a letter from 
the IG, the information shows the applicant was breaching a 
lawful order, as mentioned earlier, since attending ALS is in 
fact a mission requirement. Consequently, DPSID does not 
recommend voiding or removing the report in question. 


 

AFPC/DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states the applicant’s LOR 
and UIF were accomplished IAW the governing instructions. 

 

AFPC/DPSIM complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and agrees with the DPSID and DPSIM 
evaluations. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 1 Jun 11 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-2010-03495 in Executive Session on 1 Jul 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 5 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, APFC/DPSOE, dated 16 Feb 11 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Jun 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair