RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00720 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) for the period ending 
13 Oct 05 be voided and removed from his records. 

 

2. His line number for promotion to master sergeant (E-7) be 
reinstated and he be granted other relief as appropriate. 

 

3. He be awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM). 

 

4. A flag be flown in honor of his service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The applicant states he received unfair treatment when he 
attempted to file formal investigations, specifically; his EPR 
was marked below standard. The applicant provides an 8-page 
statement, with attachments, making the following key 
contentions: 

 

 1. The IG and EEO offices along with the 62nd Medical Group, 
McChord Air Force Base, Washington, ignored his requests, which 
was in direct violation of the governing regulation and the No 
Fear Act of 2003. He believes that in all of his attempts to 
bring formal charges against his leadership for dereliction, 
reprisal, and unprofessional behavior, that he became an easy 
target of hearsay, harassment, and discrimination. There was a 
personality conflict between him and his rater. 

 

 2. Two other people wrote letters of support to show that his 
leadership did not take the proper actions to correct his rater’s 
behavior. His request for a change of rater was denied and the 
personality conflict continued. 

 

 3. The documents he provides clearly detail the “root cause” of 
his behavior during his evaluation between Oct 04 and Oct 05 was 
influenced by prescription drugs. He was not properly diagnosed 
until 24 Jul 06. His profile clearly indicates that he was 
unable to stand longer than 10 minutes. He believes because he 
was on trial medication that the side effects may have been the 
reason he had difficulty remembering or thinking, confusion, 


abnormal thoughts or dreams, joint pain, as noted in the Letters 
of Counseling (LOC) and Letter of Reprimand (LOR) that were 
presented by his rater between 28 Oct and 4 Nov 04; he also 
received an Article 15 for an unrelated incident and after his 
promotion to master sergeant was removed. 

 

 4. He provides his profiles from 2005 and 2007 to show the 
contrast in his treatment once he was diagnosed with a herniated 
disc and pinched nerve root in his spine. His rater gave him a 
20 inch stool to sit on to perform his duties, which was in 
violation of his profile. He believes that if his profile had 
been accomplished with the words above when he was first placed 
on a profile none of this would have happened. He asks for this 
injustice to be corrected because he is not lazy and his records 
subsequently have proven this. 

 

In the remaining pages of his statement the applicant gives a 
detailed account of what took place leading to the actions he is 
contesting. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, excerpts from his medical records, letters of support, 
and other documentation associated with his request. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 30 Jun 09 in 
the grade of technical sergeant. He served on active duty for 20 
years and 3 days. 

 

The following complaints were filed by the applicant with the Air 
Mobility Command Inspector General (AMC/IG): 

 

 1. Allegation One: “On or about (O/A) 15 June 2005, the 
commander, 62nd Medical Support Squadron (62 MDSS/CC) withheld 
his promotion in reprisal for a protected communication, in 
violation of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 
1034.” 

 

 2. Allegation Two: “O/A 19 October 2005, the 62 MDSS/CC 
rendered a referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) on the 
applicant in reprisal for a protected communication, in violation 
of Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1034.” 

 

 3. Allegation Three: “O/A 19 October 2005, the 62 MDSS TRICARE 
Operations and Administration Flight Commander (62 MDSS/SGST) 
rendered a referral EPR on the applicant in reprisal for a 
protected communication, in violation of Title 10 U.S.C., Section 
1034.” 

 


 4. Allegation Four: “O/A 19 October 2005, the applicant’s 
supervisor rendered a referral EPR on him in reprisal for a 
protected communication, in violation of Title 10 U.S.C., Section 
1034.” 

 

Upon review of the applicant’s complaints and evidence, the 62 
AW/IG concluded there was insufficient justification to conduct 
an investigation and recommended the applicant’s allegations be 
dismissed. Additionally, both AMC/IGQ and SAF/IGQ reviewed the 
report and concurred that the allegations should be dismissed. 

 

The applicant also filed a complaint with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) office; however, his case was dismissed. 

 

The applicant received an Article 15 for disobeying a lawful 
order to complete Anti-terrorism training and wrongfully failing 
to complete the training by the prescribed time. 

 

The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports 
Appeals Board (ERAB); however, the ERAB was not convinced the 
original report was unjust or wrong and denied his request. 

 

The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the 
report closing 26 Oct 07: 

 

 RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 26 Oct 07 5 

 20 Dec 06 5 

 20 Jun 06 4 

* 13 Oct 05 2 

 13 Oct 04 5 

 

 

* Contested Report 

 

Under separate cover, the applicant requested assistance from 
Senator Murray on 19 Jan 11 in support of his appeal to remove 
the contested EPR; to be awarded the AFCM; have his promotion to 
master sergeant reinstated, and have a flag flown in his honor. 

 

The AFCM criterion: The AFCM is awarded to members of the Armed 
Forces of the United States who, while serving in any capacity 
with the Air Force after 25 Mar 58, shall have distinguished 
themselves by meritorious achievement and service. The degree of 
merit must be distinctive, though not involve the voluntary risk 
of life required for the Soldier’s Medal (or the Airman’s Medal 
now authorized for the Air Force). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The application is untimely. 
Despite his allegations, the applicant has not provided 
compelling evidence from any competent medical authority to 
substantiate his claims of being unfit for duty due to prescribed 
medications or any diagnosed medical conditions he may have been 
suffering at the time. His profile from 26 Apr 05 through 1 Aug 
05 limits the activities he was able to perform at work. 
However, he fails to provide any documentation that his actual 
duties performed during the contested rating period violated his 
medical profile. 

 

Further, the applicant alleged that in his attempts to bring 
formal charges against his leadership for dereliction, reprisal, 
and unprofessional behavior, he became an easy target of hearsay, 
harassment, and discrimination. He asserts he was victimized in 
direct violation of the No Fear Act of 2003 and because he went 
to the IG and EEO that led to the markdowns and referral of his 
2006 EPR. However, despite these allegations, he does not 
provide any evidence of a completed IG, MEO, or other formal 
investigation from credible sources into any of these matters. 

 

The applicant provides memorandums from three individuals; 
however, none of the individuals were in his rating chain and did 
not prepare the contested report. The applicant has not provided 
factual, specific, and substantiated information that is from 
credible officials and is based on firsthand observation or 
knowledge. Furthermore, the applicant does not provide any 
statements from the evaluators during the contested period; 
therefore, DPSID can only conclude the EPR is accurate as 
written. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. The applicant believes he should 
have received an AFCM for his “prolonged outstanding service of 
20 years.” However, without official documentation that verifies 
the applicant was considered for award of the AFCM, and based on 
the current merits of this case, DPSIDR is unable to find an 
injustice exists with regard to the applicant not being awarded 
the AFCM. 

 

The complete DPSIDR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE defers to the recommendation of DPSID regarding the 
applicant’s request for removal of the contested EPR. The first 
time the contested report would normally have been considered in 
the promotion process was cycle 06E7; however, the fact that the 
EPR was a referral report rendered the applicant ineligible for 
promotion consideration in accordance with the governing 
regulation. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

He reiterates his original contentions in a 12-page rebuttal; 
however, the applicant makes the following key contentions and 
provides it as new evidence: 

 

1. The application was not submitted in a timely manner due to 
attempts of bringing formal charges against his rater, additional 
rater, and commander. With regard to his request to have his EPR 
removed from his records, he provides six facts why the report 
should be voided: 

 

 a. His rights were violated when he was not allowed to 
receive medical care. 

 

 b. His civil rights were violated due to multiple errors in 
how his Article 15 punishment was administered. He was 
influenced by neurological drugs for migraine headaches, pain and 
ADHD which clouded his judgment and made it unclear what he was 
signing on 28 Apr 05. 

 

 c. Many errors occurred in how the LOC punishment was 
administered. 

 

 d. His referral EPR was subjective and did not objectively 
report his performance accurately since it was negatively 
influenced by a junior NCO’s dereliction. 

 

 e. He never received feedback in accordance with the 
governing regulation. 

 

 f. There were numerous delayed communications from his rater. 
The rater’s documented unprofessional behavior indicates the 
rater hindered the mission by having “personality conflicts” with 
him that affected his training and caused his concern to write a 
letter to his Congressman to remove him from the “Hostile Work 
Environment.” 

 

2. Many medical documents indicate he was diagnosed with migraine 
headaches. He was given trial medications for ADHD; narcotics 
that caused him to “not feel like himself” along with pain 
medications for his herniated disc, which resulted in “cruel and 
unusual punishment” by being ignored by his rater. 

 

3. He provides information from the IG and EEO offices, although 
due to the time that has passed his case files were not archived, 
but destroyed after the two-year point. 

 


The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
submission, we are not persuaded that the contested EPR should be 
removed, his line number for promotion to master sergeant be 
reinstated and that he be awarded the AFCM. The documents 
provided with the applicant’s submission do not, in our opinion, 
support a finding that the evaluators were unable to render 
unbiased evaluations of the applicant’s performance or that the 
ratings on the contested report were based on factors other than 
applicant’s duty performance during the contested rating period. 
The applicant asserts he suffered reprisal due to protected 
communications he made to the IG and EEO office; however, we find 
the evidence submitted is insufficient to support the applicant’s 
contentions and further note that multiple levels of review by 
the IG upheld an initial IG finding that there was insufficient 
justification to investigate the complaints the applicant 
alleged. Other than the applicant’s own assertions, we see no 
evidence that his raters abused their discretionary authority, 
that the ratings were based on inappropriate considerations, or 
that the report is technically flawed. Based on our finding in 
regard to the contested EPR, we find no basis to reinstate the 
applicant’s line number to master sergeant. Regarding the 
applicant’s request for award of the AFCM, we are in agreement 
with recommendation of AFPC/DPSIDR and adopt its rationale for 
our determination the applicant has not been the victim of error 
or injustice regarding award of the AFCM. Lastly, the 
applicant’s request for a flag to be flown in his honor is 
outside the purview of the board. 

 

4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

5. The applicant alleges he has been the victim of reprisal and 
has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (10 USC 1034). As noted above, the IG determined 
there was insufficient justification to investigate the 
applicant’s complaints. Based on our own review of the available 
evidence, we do not find that it supports that the applicant was 


the victim of reprisal. Therefore, we find no basis to grant 
the relief sought by the applicant on the basis of reprisal. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-00720 in Executive Session on 2 Feb 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 22 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDR, dated 19 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 2 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair