RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00175 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, rendered for the 
period 22 Dec 05 through 21 Dec 07, be declared void and removed 
from his records. 

 

2. His AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, associated with the 
aforementioned AF Form 475, be declared void and removed from 
his records. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The contested referral AF Form 475 is unjust as it fails to 
comply with multiple provisions of AFI 36-2406, Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Systems. 

 

1. The inclusion of the derogatory information was 
inappropriate. The AFI indicates that raters should be 
particularly careful about referring to charges preferred or 
other information that is not complete as of the closeout of the 
report; however, there was only a traffic citation issued at the 
time the report was rendered, but no substantial evidence to 
validate comments in the report related to his apprehended for 
driving under the influence (DUI). 

 

2. The police report was not available until well after the 
closeout and his initial court appearance did not take place 
until 2008. As such, the closeout of the report should have 
instead been extended for the purpose of completing the action. 

 

3. There was no referral memorandum as required by the AFI. 

 

4. The evaluator failed to prepare an endorsement to the report 
indicating the applicant’s rebuttal comments were considered. 
Instead the additional rater, not the evaluator, inappropriately 
used an AF Form 77 to document this requirement. The additional 
rater also failed to indicate whether or not he concurred with 
the evaluator as is required by the AFI. 

 

5. The reporting period reflected on the AF Form 77 is 
erroneous. 


In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of excerpts from his military personnel 
records, which include the contested documents, his rebuttal 
thereto, and correspondence related to his unfavorable 
information file (UIF). 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he is 
currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
captain (O-4). 

 

The contested AF Form 475, dated 29 Feb 08, was rendered upon 
the applicant and Block III, Comments, contained the statement, 
“During this reporting period, Capt S_____ was apprehended for 
DUI for which he received a Letter of Reprimand.” 

 

On 3 Mar 08, the contested AF Form 475 was referred to the 
applicant by the rater by virtue of a referral memorandum. 

 

On 14 Mar 08, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and, on 21 Mar 08, he submitted a rebuttal memorandum citing 
similar contentions to the matter under review. 

 

The contested AF Form 77, dated 24 Mar 08, was subsequently 
rendered upon the applicant. Block IV, Comments/Impact on 
Mission Accomplishment, included the comment, “I have carefully 
considered Capt S______’s comments to the referral memo of 
29 Feb 08. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an injustice. Although the applicant contends there were errors 
in the processing of the AF Form 475, the governing instruction 
indicates that raters should describe the underlying 
performance, behavior, or misconduct itself and not merely the 
fact the conduct may have resulted in a punitive or 
administrative action taken against the member, such as a letter 
of reprimand, Article 15, court-martial conviction, etc. 
Therefore, it appears the rater/additional rater followed the 
guidelines prescribed by the applicable Air Force Instructions. 
While the applicant indicates the official police report was not 
available at the time the report was rendered, the applicant 


operated a motor vehicle while drunk, which occurred during the 
reporting period. The applicant was apprehended for DUI and 
received an LOR. This incident still occurred during the 
reporting period and the applicant has not provided sufficient 
supporting documentation from the rating chain, other credible 
officials, or the IG substantiating any errors to counter the 
facts at the time. Additionally, the applicant affirmed in the 
rebuttal to the referral training report that ”when looking at 
him in the whole person concept, you see a good leader and 
officer who made an error in judgment and will take the story 
back to fellow Airman as the voice of experience.” As such, the 
applicant clearly understands and acknowledges that he did make 
an error in judgment. Furthermore, he has not provided any 
information regarding the outcome of his court proceeding in 
order to possibly justify an inaccuracy or error in the subject 
charges during the contested reporting period. As such, it can 
only be concluded the evaluation was accurate as written. An 
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chain’s 
best judgment at the time it is rendered and once a report is 
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
its correction or removal. 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
29 Jul 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice warranting 
removal of the contested AF Form 475 or associated AF Form 77. 
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We 
note the applicant’s contention there was no referral memorandum 
accompanying the contested report; however, in reviewing the 
facts and circumstances in the case, we note the applicant’s 


military personnel records include a copy of the referral 
memorandum, dated 3 Mar 08, which was acknowledged by the 
applicant on 14 Mar 08. As for the applicant’s contention the 
contested AF Form 77 erroneously reflects it was rendered for 
the period 22 Dec 05 through 21 Dec 05, we note the Air Force 
office of primary responsibility will correct his records 
administratively to reflect the correct closeout of 22 Dec 07. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence the applicant was denied 
rights to which he was entitled, or appropriate standards were 
not applied, we find no basis to recommend granting relief 
beyond the noted administrative correction. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-00175 in Executive Session on 8 Nov 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 14 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair