RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03830 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored and she 
receive all back pay and allowances. 

 

2. Her enlisted performance report (EPR) for the period ending 
31 Jul 09 be removed from her records. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was not afforded due process during the demotion process. 
She did not receive adequate feedback or rehabilitation in order 
to change her “bad behavior”, which is mandatory according to the 
governing Air Force Instructions (AFI). 

 

In a 23-page brief, the applicant and her attorney make the 
following key contentions: 

 

 a. She was a scapegoat in the Afghanistan War Zone. She was 
required to perform 8 impossible tasks at one time; quickly and 
error-free. The 8 major jobs were: Unit correspondence, awards 
and decorations, chief postal clerk, support administrator for 
software, computer, maintenance, inventory, safety, and vehicle 
supervisor. 

 

 b. She had no training or experience as a safety monitor or for 
most of the other duties that she was assigned. She had no 
access to needed reports and was assigned away from the necessary 
equipment. 

 

 c. She received an LOR for failing to keep track of her loaded 
weapon while repairing computers. The work required her to be on 
her hands and knees in order to fix the computer. 

 

 d. She was sent home after 8 weeks because she suffered from 
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). It took 11 people to 
replace her. 

 

 e. She had an exemplary career up to this point. She was 
assigned exhausting duties at a base that was seriously 
undermanned. 


 

 f. Her demotion focused on her Letter or Reprimand (LOR). Her 
unit concluded that, “We Cannot Correct This.” Her supervisor 
wrongly justified her demotion due, in part, to a matter that was 
4 years old. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a 23-page 
personal statement. 

 

Her complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the New York Air National 
Guard in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

The applicant received a referral EPR for the rating period of 
1 Aug 08 thru 31 Jul 09after being rated “1” and for being marked 
“Does Not Meet Standards” in one or more areas. The EPR also 
contains comments derogatory in nature and references behavior 
not meeting minimum acceptable standards of professional conduct. 
On 10 Sep 09, the applicant acknowledge receipt of the Referral 
EPR notification. 

 

On 10 Sep 09, the applicant’s commander notified her of his 
intention to demote her to staff sergeant. The specific reason 
for this action was because her duty performance while deployed 
in support of Operation Enduring Freedom with the 451 Air 
Expeditionary Wing (AEW) was substandard and she was derelict in 
the performance of her duties on multiple occasions. 
Specifically, the applicant was consistently unprofessional 
towards customers seeking assistance at the wing staff office 
that had a negative impact on the wing staff relationship with 
the members of the wing; she failed to show for assigned duty to 
assist at a bi-weekly meeting on two occasions, despite 
counseling and a direct order from the captain in charge; she 
failed to keep her M-16 rifle under her control on multiple 
occasions, leaving it in a number of different locations along 
with her ammunition. 

 

After a legal review, the staff judge advocate found the evidence 
legally sufficient to support the determination that the 
applicant failed to meet her non-commissioned officer (NCO) 
responsibilities and that those failures were serious and 
significant enough to warrant a demotion. Thereafter, the 109th 
Force Support Squadron (109th FSS) Commander demoted the 
applicant to staff sergeant with an effective date and date of 
rank of 22 Jan 10. 

 

The following is a resume of his EPR ratings, commencing with the 
report closing 31 Jul 07: 

 


 RATING PERIOD PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 

 

 31 Jul 07 Excellent 

 31 Jul 08 4 

 31 Jul 09* 1 

 31 Jul 10 3 

 31 Jul 11 3 

 

* Referral EPR 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1POE recommends denial. After reviewing the evidence of 
record, they find her complaint does not substantiate an error. 
The documentation submitted by the applicant and the demotion 
package that was received from the 109th FFS indicates she was 
given due process in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman 
Promotion/Demotion Programs, which states, when appropriate, give 
Airmen an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before 
demotion action is initiated. Commanders should maintain 
supporting documentation of all rehabilitation and probationary 
actions. In addition, A1POE finds the referral EPR was processed 
IAW AFI 36-2406, paragraph 3.9, Referral Report Procedures. 

 

The applicant contends that due process or rehabilitation was not 
afforded to her, which is mandatory according to the governing 
instructions. After a review of the information provided and the 
additional information provided by her unit, A1POE was not able 
to find sufficient evidence to determine she was not given due 
process. Furthermore, it is neither A1POE’s desire nor function 
to second guess a unit commander. 

 

The complete NGB/A1POE evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS concurs with the NGB Subject 
Matter Expert’s (SME) advisory and does not find an injustice 
occurred. 

 

The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant points out that when she returned to the United 
States, she worked very hard, pleading with her senior officer 
leadership and NCOs within her chain of command concerning 
“mentorship and rehabilitation efforts.” However, no one helped 
her. She explains that “Many of these individuals refused to 


even give me a statement of my good-faith efforts to salvage my 
rank.” 

 

She would like to know how she can possibly give the Board the 
evidence for her case when senior NCOs and officers treat her as 
if she had a communicable disease. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, 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 her rank of technical 
sergeant should be restored with back pay and allowances and that 
her contested EPR be removed. The applicant contends that she 
was not afforded due process during the demotion process and she 
did not receive adequate feedback or rehabilitation as is 
mandated in the governing instruction. Her contentions are duly 
noted; however, we do not find the evidence provided sufficiently 
persuasive to override the evidence of record and the rationale 
provided by the Air Force. The applicant’s commander, being 
aware of all of the circumstances involved, was in the best 
position to determine whether the applicant merited demotion. He 
also is presumed to have acted on the basis of information he 
determined to be reliable when he made the decision. Although 
the applicant presents detailed arguments, she has failed to 
provide persuasive evidence to show an error or injustice in her 
demotion occurred, that the commander abused his discretionary 
authority or that she was not afforded due process. In view of 
the foregoing and in the absence of persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-03830 in Executive Session on 17 May 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Sep 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 7 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 8 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Apr 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair