RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00875
		COUNSEL: 
		HEARING DESIRED: NO
		
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information 
File (UIF) be removed from her records. 

2.  Her referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period 27 June 2010 through 26 June 2011 be voided and 
removed from her records.

3.  Her corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) 
consideration by the Calendar Year (CY) 2011B and CY2012B 
Captain (Capt) Promotion Process.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Her promotion to the grade of captain was twice rejected due 
to having an LOR/UIF for allegedly proving false information on 
her commissioning paperwork.  Consequently, she received a Do 
Not Promote (DNP) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).  

2.  On 19 November 2010, she was issued a Notification for Show 
Cause and on 1 March 2011, it was withdrawn.  However, the 
withdrawl notification could have been given sooner than 
1 March 2011, allowing her to be promoted and not deferred twice 
for promotion.  

3.  She was placed on the Control Roster for two years without a 
reoccurrence of the alleged incident that was subsequently 
withdrawn.

In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her 
referral OPR, LOR, Officer Training School (OTS) certificate, 
memorandums and various other documentation associated with her 
appeal.

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

_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force in the grade 
of first lieutenant. 

On 19 November 2010, she was served a Notification of Show 
Cause.

On 1 March 2011, after reviewing information provided by the Air 
Armament Center (AAC)/Judge Advocate and the applicant the 
Headquarters (AAC) commander withdrew the Notification of Show 
Cause.

On 11 May 2011, the applicant was issued a LOR.  Specifically, 
an investigation revealed she allegedly failed to disclose her 
15 November 2009, civilian arrest on her commissioning 
paperwork.  

On 16 May 2011, she submitted written matters in response to the 
LOR. On 19 May 2011, the commander determined the applicant 
engaged in the conduct as noted in the LOR and concluded the LOR 
was the appropriate course of action in her case.  In addition, 
the commander notified the applicant of her intent to forward 
the LOR to the 96th Air Base Wing commander (96 ABW/CC) for a 
determination on whether to file it in her Officer Selection 
Record (OSR).  

On 20 May 2011, the applicant’s commander recommended the 
96 ABW/CC not place the LOR in her OSR.

On 31 May 2011, the 96 ABW/CC determined the LOR would be filed 
in her OSR.  On 3 June 2011, the applicant was notified of the 
decision. 

On 18 April 2012, AFPC/DPSIMC requested the applicant provide 
additional supporting information to substantiate her claim.  
Specifically, the AF IMT 1058, UIF Action.  

On 11 October 2012, the applicant requested her case be 
administratively closed until such time she was ready to 
proceed. 

On 29 Oct 12, the applicant submitted an addendum to her 
previously submitted DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 12 and requested 
her case be reopened. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the LOR from her records.  DPSIMC states that a review of 
the applicant’s request reflects the LOR was processed in 
accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File 
Program.  The UIF is a file for documenting administrative, 
judicial or non-judicial censures concerning negative aspects of 
the member’s performance, responsibility or behavior

The complete DPSIMC evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void 
and remove her referral OPR.  DPSID states that the applicant 
did not file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports Appeals 
Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting 
Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.

DPSID states that the applicant has not provided any compelling 
or realistic evidence to show that the report is unjust or 
inaccurate as written.  In fact, in her rebuttal to the referral 
OPR, the applicant takes full responsibility for the mistakes 
that she acknowledges to have made, mistakes that were commented 
on in the referral OPR she seeks to have removed.  

DPSID states that an evaluation report is considered to 
represent the rating chain’s best judgment at the time it is 
rendered.  DPSID states that once a report is accepted for file, 
only strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or 
removal from an individual’s record.  The applicant has not 
substantiated in any way that the contested report was not 
rendered in good faith by all evaluators based on the knowledge 
available at the time.  To authorize the removal of this 
evaluation would be contrary to the evaluators intended purpose 
and would be an injustice to all other Air Force officers which 
maintain the high standards every day.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration.  DPSOO states that the applicant was considered 
by the CY2011B (30 June 2011) and CY2012B (30 June 2012) 
Captains Promotion Process with a DNP recommendation.  She was 
nonselected by the CY2011B Process; however, the results of the 
CY2012B Captains Process have not been released.  

DPSOO states that based on DPSIMCs denial to remove the LOR/UIF 
and DPSIDs denial to remove the referral OPR, they recommend the 
Board deny the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

By addendum, the applicant states that prior to entering the Air 
Force she was involved in a physical altercation.  She was 
initially charged; however, after several continuances to plead 
her case, the charges were dropped and her records expunged.  

In 2010, when she joined the Air Force she explained the 
incident to her former recruiter and provided documentation 
regarding the incident.  Unbeknownst to her, the recruiter 
failed to include the documentation in her application.  She 
trusted that her former recruiter, acting as an agent for the 
government, knew what information to/not to include.  She was 
advised to sign the paperwork verifying its completeness and 
veracity and was thankful to enter the Air Force.  

In 2011, after the Notification of Show Cause was withdrawn, she 
signed a Certificate of Service, dated 3 May 2011, noting the 
AAC/CCs request for discharge, dated 2 May 2011 was being 
withdrawn.  However, she received a LOR for the exact same 
reason the Notification of Show Cause was given “falsifying 
documents.”  

The applicant contends her former recruiter was caught 
falsifying recruitment applications and relieved of his duties.  
While she cannot attest to the fate of others who may have 
joined through his actions, but the LOR she received directly 
prevented her from being promoted to captain and required her to 
be involuntary separated.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took 
careful 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.  The applicant’s numerous contentions are 
duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by 
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of 
record or the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility.  Furthermore, we are not persuaded by 
the evidence that the actions taken by her commander were beyond 
his scope of authority, inappropriate, or arbitrary and 
capricious.  In view of the above and 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 Docket Number   
BC-2012-00875 in Executive Session on 15 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					Panel Chair
					Member
					Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-00875 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Mar 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPSIMC, Letter, dated 21 Jun 12.
	Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 14 Jul 12.
	Exhibit E.  AFPC/DPSOO, Letter, dated 30 Aug 12.
	Exhibit F.  SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 11 Sep 12
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Oct 12, 
                w/atch.
	Exhibit H.  Rebuttal, Applicant, dated 29 Oct 12, w/atchs




                                   
								Panel Chair