RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03760
		COUNSEL: NONE
				HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AF IMT 475, Education/Training Report (TR), rendered for the 
period 21 Apr 09 thru 18 Dec 09, be declared void and removed 
from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant provides a copy of the AF IMT 948, Application for 
Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports from his commander 
requesting his AF Form 475 be removed due to inaccuracies and 
injustices and he agrees with the proposed actions.

His commander states that his contested TR contained both a 
direct and implied derogatory statement regarding his 
performance and should have been processed as a referral TR in 
accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Systems, and thereby denied due process protections.  
A referral would have given him the opportunity to reply and 
required review/signature by a higher authority.  

He does not have the resources available to mount a defense 
regarding the contested TR. 

There is substantial evidence that proves the derogatory 
comments on the TR do not relate to his actual performance at 
the training school, as substantiated by a Commander-Directed 
Investigation (CDI).  Instead the derogatory comments may have 
come from protected complaints made by him and subordinate 
classmates about the leadership at the training school.

There is an ongoing criminal/Inspector General (IG) 
investigation against the leadership team at the school, to 
include the person who signed his TR.  

The Board should take action on the basis of procedural errors 
and the evidence provided in support of his petition and not 
wait for the final results of the IG and criminal processes.

He has met two promotion boards with this derogatory report 
potentially serving as the source of his non-selection.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade 
of captain.  

On 20 Nov 11, the applicant filed a complaint with the 17th 
Training Wing Inspector General (17 TW/IG) alleging his TR 
rendered for the period 21 Apr 09 thru 18 Dec 09, was written as 
an adverse action, as a reprisal for his conversation with his 
chain of command regarding sexual harassment issues between his 
classmates.

On 8 Dec 11, the 17 TW/IG reviewed the complaint and determined 
that while the applicant did provide potential extenuating 
circumstances that contributed to his delay in filing, the 
events in question occurred so long ago that it would be 
virtually impossible to gather sufficient credible evidence to 
accurately adjudicate the issues he wanted examined.  Therefore, 
IAW AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution the 
applicant’s case was closed.  The applicant was notified of the 
IG’s decision.  

The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, 
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  The ERAB 
considered the applicant’s appeal and was not convinced the 
report was unjust or inaccurate and denied her request for 
relief.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibit C and D. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  DPSID states that the applicant 
contends the comment “Eventually met minimum Air Education and 
Training Command (AETC) standards of bearing, fitness and 
appearance with frequent mentoring and guidance from staff and 
squadron leadership; mentored frequently on leadership, 
communication and professionalism,” was derogatory; therefore, 
his TR should have been referred.  However, they disagree that 
the comment was in fact derogatory in nature, and presume that 
in the absence of input or explanation from the evaluator, that 
they were in fact valid for comment on the contested TR.  In 
addition, the CDI did not find the comments to be invalid; they 
merely only commented that they could find no evidence to prove 
they were warranted, which is clearly not the same thing.  

DPSID states the CDI report stated there appeared to be some 
circumstantial evidence which suggested a personality conflict, 
but there was insufficient evidence to conclude there were in 
fact any reprisal actions taken against the applicant by the 
evaluator in this case.  

DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report 
is considered to represent the rating chain’s best judgment at 
the time it is rendered.  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 the contested report was not rendered in good 
faith by the evaluator based on knowledge available at the time.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states that one of the 
conclusions of the CDI was that the Investigating Officer (IO) 
could find no documentary or testamentary evidence to support 
any poor performance on the part of the applicant or that he 
fell short of AETC standards.  However, despite interviewing 
numerous witnesses, the IO failed to interview the single most 
important witness relative to this allegation – the author of 
the TR.  Without, this person’s input, JA opines the report of 
investigation (ROI) is incomplete and unworthy of any 
consideration regarding the accuracy of the TR.  

JA states the applicant has failed to establish an error or 
injustice.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 16 Oct 12, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 
voidance and removal of the contested training report from his 
records.  We are not persuaded by the evidence provided that the 
contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of his 
performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time 
period, that the comments contained in the report are in error, 
and that the report was prepared in a manner contrary to the 
provisions of the governing instruction.  Therefore, we agree 
with the opinions and recommendations of 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.  

4. 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).  By policy, reprisal complaints 
must be filed within 60 days of the alleged incident or 
discovery to facilitate the IG’s investigation.  In the 
applicant’s case, he failed to file his IG complaint within a 
timely manner and it was closed by the IG without action.   
Nevertheless, we reviewed the evidence of record to reach our 
own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred. 
Based on our review, we do not conclude the applicant has been 
the victim of reprisal.  The applicant has not established that 
the TR was rendered in retaliation to making a protected 
communication.  Therefore, it is our determination the applicant 
has not been the victim of reprisal based on the evidence of 
record in this case.  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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03760 in Executive Session on 9 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03760 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 12, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 17 Sep 12.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Oct 12.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Oct 12.




							
							Panel Chair




2