RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02840
		COUNSEL: NO
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for 
the period 3 Apr 07 thru 25 Nov 07, be, declared void and 
removed from her records. 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment she received was due to the guidelines set by the 
Air Force and did not take into consideration the nature of the 
incident/decision made.  The decision to use her Government 
Travel Card (GTC) was made due to an emergency situation/act of 
desperation.  

Memos covering five years of service since her change of 
reporting official OPR and punishment document her stellar 
improvements, her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) has been 
removed and all disciplinary actions are complete. 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of DD 
Form 214, Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty; 
AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation; AF Forms 707; AF Forms 
2224, Air Force Commendation Medal, letters of recommendation 
and various other documentation associated with her request. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to AF Form 3070C, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment 
(NJP) Proceedings (Officer), dated 22 Oct 07, the applicant was 
charged with violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ).  Specifically, she was accused of wrongfully 
using her GTC for personal, family, or household related 
expenses from 26 Mar 06 thru 19 May 07.  

The applicant consulted counsel, waived her right to demand 
trial by court-martial, and accepted the NJP.  She submitted 
written matters in her own behalf and requested a personal 
appearance before the commander. 

The commander determined she committed the offense alleged, and 
imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture of $1,000.00 pay per 
month for two months and a reprimand.  The portion of the 
punishment which extended to forfeitures in excess of 
$200.00 per month for two months was suspended until 12 May 08, 
at which time it was to be remitted without further action, 
unless sooner vacated.

The applicant did not appeal the commander’s decision.  The 
commander decided the action would be filed in her Officer 
Selection Record (OSR).  The Article 15 action was reviewed by 
the servicing and General Court-Martial Convening Authority 
(GCMCA) Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) offices and determined to be 
legally sufficient.

On 31 Dec 10, the applicant was honorably discharged under the 
Force Shaping – Voluntary Separation Program (VSP).  She was 
credited with 8 years, 11 months, and 18 days of active military 
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial.  The applicant has not provided 
compelling evidence to show that the report was unjust or 
inaccurate at the time it was written.  

In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted 
Evaluation Systems, “Evaluators are strongly encouraged to 
comment in performance reports on misconduct that reflects a 
disregard of the law, whether civil law or the UCMJ, or when 
adverse actions such as Article 15, Letters of Reprimand, 
Admonishment, or Counseling, or placement on the Control Roster 
have been taken.  In this case, the applicant wrongfully used 
her GTC for personal, family and/or household related expenses.  
The rating chain appropriately chose to comment and document on 
the underlying wrongdoing, which caused the report to be 
referred to the applicant for comments and consideration to the 
next evaluator.  The applicant provided no evidence within her 
appeal to show that the referral comment on the OPR was 
inaccurate or unjust.  Moreover, a final review of the contested 
evaluation was accomplished by the additional rater and a 
subsequent agreement by the reviewer/commander served as the 
final “check and balance” in order to ensure that the report was 
given fair consideration IAW the established intent of the 
current Officer and Enlisted Evaluation System in place.  Based 
upon the presumed sufficiency of the Article 15 as served to the 
applicant, DPSID concludes that its’ mention on the contested 
report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures.  

The applicant claims “the punishment received was due to the 
guidelines set by the Air Force and did not take into 
consideration the nature of the incident/decision made.”  
However, she does not elaborate further nor does she provide any 
proof or evidence whatsoever that the mention of the Article 
15 was inappropriate in the contested OPR.  The applicant does 
not provide any evidence that would substantiate her assertions 
that the evidence used to support the NJP against her was 
insufficient.  In addition, no evidence has been provided that 
any of the administrative actions commented on the report have 
been rescinded or otherwise invalidated.  

A report is not erroneous or unfair because the applicant 
believes it contributed to a non-selection for promotion or may 
impact future promotion or career opportunities.  The simple 
willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report 
is not a valid basis for doing so.  

The applicant has not provided any evidence of an error or 
injustice in the legal sufficiency of the Article 15 and the 
referral OPR which comments upon it.  

The applicant has failed to provide any information/support from 
any rating official on the contested OPR.  Once a report is 
accepted for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record.  

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Air Force guidelines states the GTC cannot be used for any 
personal, family and/or household related expenses.  However, 
she used her GTC during the period of 26 Mar 06 and/on 19 May 
07, for permissive Temporary Duty (TDY) (as instructed she could 
as a second lieutenant) and/en route emergency leave.  She is 
not disputing the ruling or judgment from her leadership; 
however, she is stating that a similar double jeopardy has 
occurred regarding the review of her records as stated by the 
Mobilization Assistant to the USCYBEROMMAND/CC.  She worked hard 
to restore her leadership’s trust and regard.  The evidence she 
submitted provided a history and shows how the referral comments 
provided a bias review of her overall career snapshot and 
therefore, a fair consideration during the process was 
unobtainable. 

She took responsibility for her actions and used the card 
because she had no other options.  Even after her rating chain 
evaluated her duty performance and her punishment was completed, 
the one contested OPR voided all the awards, accolades and 
accomplishments she received on active duty and in the Reserves.  
She has proof that her leadership fought internally/externally 
to showcase her improvement and hard work to no avail.  The Air 
Force would not allow any type of overturn after the one 
incident.  Even after joining the Air Force Reserves, her 
leadership provided recommendation memorandums to assist in 
painting a new picture of the hard work and trust that was 
restored.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  
While the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluation is 
noted, we do not find her assertions, in and by themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive in this matter.  Additionally, we are 
not persuaded by the evidence provided that the contested report 
is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance and 
demonstrated potential during the specified time period.  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-2013-02840 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Chair
				Member
				Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 15 Nov 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Chair