RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03501 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 1 October 
2007, be voided and removed from his records. 

 

2. His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 31 December 
2007, be voided and removed from his records. (ADMINISTRATIVELY 
CORRECTED) 

 

3. AF Form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action, be 
removed from his records. 

 

4. He be reinstated into the Air Force at the highest grade 
held, E-7, master sergeant. 

 

5. As an alternative, his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 
2A (reenlistment denied by Headquarters Air Force for quality 
reasons) be changed to allow him to reenlist. 

 

6. All the individuals who falsified documents against him be 
reprimanded for their actions. 

 

7. He receive the full separation pay as indicated on his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active 
Duty. 

 

8. By amendment at Exhibit I, he be given a military retirement 
at the grade of E7, the grade held at the time of separation. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In two separate applications along with a 2-page statement and 
12-page statement, the applicant outlines how he was the victim 
of unfair treatment and as a result, ultimately discharged from 
the military. Among the major points he makes are: 

 

His supervisor backdated his EPR to close out on 1 October 2007 
and made false official statements regarding the feedback 
statement. 

 


His supervisor falsified the EPR that closed-out on 31 December 
2007. The EPR does not reflect the correct Air Force Specialty 
Code (AFSC). Additionally, it incorrectly reflects his duty 
title. 

 

His supervisor also falsified the AF Form 2096. The document 
states that he was unavailable to sign; however, there is no 
record to substantiate that claim. 

 

He was illegally removed from his duties as a Military Training 
Leader, as the removal was not approved by the Numbered Air 
Force, as required. 

 

He was disqualified from returning to his previous career as a 
Security Forces (SF) member. The SF leadership inappropriately 
considered his civilian conviction and used that to keep him from 
returning to the career field. 

 

The Military Personnel Flight (MPF) prevented him from 
retraining. He submitted a retraining package to the Office of 
Special Investigations (OSI) and was told that he could not 
submit another retraining package while submitting the package to 
OSI. He was later notified there were only three job openings 
and that he was not qualified for them. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides two personal 
statements, copies of the contested reports, e-mails, a response 
from the Inspector General (IG) and other supporting 
documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is former member of the Regular Air Force who 
enlisted on 2 April 1997. 

 

On 6 January 2007, the applicant was charged with driving under 
the influence (DUI); he pled guilty on 7 May 2007. On 10 May 
2007, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) with an Unfavorable 
Information (UIF) for violation of Article 92, Dereliction of 
Duty, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The commander reviewed 
his rebuttal and determined the LOR would be placed in the UIF. 

 

The applicant was subsequently removed from his duties as a 
Military Training Leader for unsuitability. He could not be 
placed back into his previous career field of Security Forces due 
to his civilian DUI conviction. 

 

On 27 June 2008, a formal training clerk advised him there were 
three career fields available for retraining into for technical 


sergeants. He was not qualified for two of the career fields and 
disqualified from the third as his “disqualified for cause” 
prevented him from attending schools exceeding 8 weeks. 

 

On 1 July 2008, AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for 
Separation, noted the applicant was authorized half separation 
pay based on his SPD code. He was honorably separated on 
1 September 2008 and credited with 11 years and 5 months of 
active duty service. On 4 September 2008, the applicant received 
a separation payment of $19, 189.60. 

 

On 15 June 2009, AETC/IG responded to applicant’s complaint 
regarding the personnel actions taken against him, which led to 
his separation. The IG found one allegation, while it did not 
violate the instruction, called into question the clarity of the 
instruction that was forwarded to the OPR. The other allegations 
were dismissed. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are at Exhibits C – E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial. The applicant did not submit an 
appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board. He is no 
longer active duty and does not have access to that system. 

 

The applicant contends the EPR with the close-out date of 
1 October 2007 was falsified by his chain of command by back 
dating a change of reporting official (CRO) personnel action. 
Despite numerous documents provided by the applicant, none show 
any evidence the wing commander directed any such action. As the 
IG report provided by the applicant states, even if the rating 
chain pursued a backdated CRO evaluation, it is not improper. 
The applicant’s commander is given the latitude to determine the 
rating chain for assigned personnel. In the absence of 
substantiating evidence, the CRO action by the rating chain was 
proper. 

 

The applicant also contends the EPR contained a false statement 
regarding the recording of feedback. He provides two feedback 
forms, one dated 12 February 2007, which was marked “initial.” 
He also provides a feedback marked “midterm,” which was dated 
16 October 2007. The applicant contends this document proves the 
CRO was backdated. However, that feedback was after the 
1 October 2007 reporting period. As previously stated, the 
change of the reporting period was not improper, thus the 
statement of the EPR “Official feedback not documented due to 
supervisory oversight” is appropriate. 

 


AFI 26-2406 notes, 120 days of supervision is required to write a 
Directed by Commander Report to document significant improvement 
to a report. In this case, the report with a closeout date of 
31 December 2007 did not meet this requirement and violated the 
applicable regulations. Based on that violation, that report has 
been removed from the applicant’s permanent evaluation record. 

 

An evaluation report is considered to represent the rating chains 
best judgment at the time it is rendered. Only strong evidence 
to the contrary warrants correction. The applicant has not 
substantiated the contested report was not rendered in good faith 
by all evaluators based on knowledge available at that time. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFOSI provides the following for information purposes. On 
8 November 2007, a Determination of Availability (DOA) was 
submitted for the applicant. The DOA is the first step in the 
AFOSI application process and requires the Military Personnel 
Flight to conduct a records review to determine if the applicant 
is eligible to retrain. On 12 October 2007, the Employments 
Section verified he was eligible for retraining. 

 

Based on the approved DOA, an investigation was conducted by an 
AFOSI Detachment. Based on personal conduct and personnel 
actions which caused removal of the applicant’s Security Forces 
AFSC, a determination was made he was not a suitable candidate 
for AFOSI duty. This decision required an additional review by 
the AFOSI Command Applicant Review Board which upheld the 
decision to disqualify him from AFOSI applicant processing and 
retraining actions. 

 

The complete AFSOI evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIDC recommends denial. On 25 October 2007, a 
disqualification case was opened on the applicant requesting 
withdrawal of his special identifier as a Military Training 
Leader based on his civilian conviction. The reason for 
withdrawal was failure to maintain mandatory AFSC qualification 
requirements. Only AFSC disqualification for substandard duty 
performance requires airman’s signature on the AF From 2096. 
Therefore, the applicant’s signature was not required in this 
case. 

 

The applicant’s ineligibility to return to his prior AFSC, 3P0X1, 
Security Forces was based on his civilian conviction. The AFSC 
specialty description at the time noted: entry, award and 
retention requirement of never been convicted by a civilian court 
of a Category 1, 2 or 3 offense, nor exceeded the accepted number 
of Category 4 offenses. 

 

The applicant’s disqualification case was approved on 22 January 
2008. The case was referred back to his base to notify him to 
apply for retraining through Virtual MPF. There is no evidence to 


suggest the applicant was not properly disqualified from his 
AFSC. 

 

The complete DPSIDC evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. The applicant was discharged on 
1 September 2008 with an honorable discharge and a $79,316.02 
severance because he did not have an AFSC commensurate with his 
grade and was forced to separate on his Date of Separation. 

 

On 21 December 2007, the applicant’s primary AFSC, 3P0X1, 
Security Forces and his Control AFSC, 8B100, Military Training 
Leader, was changed to 9A100, Awaiting Retraining – Reasons 
within Control. He pursued retraining into the AFOSI through 
their organization. The applicant was not allowed to pursue 
additional retraining while pursuing OSI as only one position 
could be filled at a time. The standard operating procedure is 
to let the member request retraining into OSI first and then 
pursue other options. 

 

The applicant applied for retraining through DPSOA in March 2008 
and was disapproved in June 2008 after his application met three 
retraining boards and was not selected. 

 

The completed DPSOA evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

 

AFPC/DPSOE provides the following information. The applicant was 
eligible for promotion consideration beginning with cycle 08E7. 
However, he became ineligible when he was disqualified from his 
AFSC. 

 

Although he received a referral EPR for the period of 14 December 
2006 through 1 October 2007, he received a non-referral with a 
close-out date of 31 December 2007, which is the promotion 
eligibility cut-off date. This EPR rendered him eligible for 
promotion consideration. However, removal of his report with the 
31 December 2007 close-out rendered him ineligible for promotion 
consideration as the 1 October 2007 report became the top report 
for cycle 08E7. 

 

The completed DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant, through counsel, submits a 7-page statement and a 
1-page statement regarding the Air Force advisories. Counsel 
alleges the actions taken by the commander for the applicant’s 


DUI were appropriate; however, the additional actions against the 
applicant nearly a year later ultimately forced him out of the 
Air Force. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit I. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 
careful consideration of the applicant’s request, evidence of 
record and counsel’s response, we find insufficient evidence of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action. As stated by 
DPSID, there was no evidence submitted to substantiate the 
applicant’s contentions that his command demanded a back dated 
change of reporting official to justify giving him a referral 
EPR. The governing instruction gives the commander latitude to 
determine the rating chain of personnel. There is no evidence 
the performance report was not rendered in good faith by all 
those in the rating chain. With regard to the EPR with the 
close-out date of 31 December 2007, the applicant’s records have 
been administratively corrected to remove this report. Other 
than this administrative correction, no further action is 
warranted. 

 

4. The applicant’s request to remove the AF Form 2096 is not 
favorably considered. The applicant was withdrawn from his AFSC 
due to his civilian conviction for driving under the influence. 
The rationale expressed by DPSIDC explains the AFSC 
disqualification was for failure to maintain mandatory AFSC 
qualification. The applicant could not return to his primary 
AFSC solely due to his conviction by a civilian court of a 
Category 2 offense, which is disqualifying. We find the 
disqualification via AF Form 2096 was executed in accordance 
within the prescribed regulation and no corrective action is 
warranted. 

 

5. Through counsel, the applicant requests that he receive 
either his full separation pay, or retirement at E-7, the highest 
grade held. We note, the highest grade the applicant held was E-
6, technical sergeant. Upon separation the applicant was 
authorized half of separation pay based on his SPD code. 
Accordingly, he was paid a severance of $19,189.60, which 
included his separation pay, lump-sum sold leave and final 
earnings less appropriate deductions. The applicant through an 


unfortunate set of circumstances found himself without an AFSC. 
However, the circumstances were a direct result of his actions. 
Accordingly, other than the administrative correction we find no 
further relief is warranted. 

 

6. 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 BCMR Docket Number 
BC-2011-03501 in Executive Session on 11 September 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A1. DD Form 149, dtd 12 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit A2. DD Form 149, dtd 28 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dtd 23 Jan 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFOSI OL-E, dtd 23 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDC, dtd 26 Mar 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dtd 2 Apr 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dtd 25 Apr 12. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 4 May 12. 

 Exhibit I. Applicant’s Response, dtd 6 Jun and 12 Jul 12. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair