RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00174
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with a close out date of
2 Jun 11 be voided. (Administratively corrected)
Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 25 Apr 11, be dismissed.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was never allowed to provide a rebuttal for the LOR. The LOR
was in direct violation of her Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act since it discusses personal medical conditions.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 Apr 93, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force and is
currently serving in the grade of senior master sergeant.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID determined the relief sought by the applicant was
resolved through pertinent administrative procedures. Based on
the evidence provided, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB)
approved the applicants request to remove the contested EPR for
the inclusive period 7 Dec 10 to 2 Jun 11. An AF Form 77, Letter
of Evaluation, was added to the Automated Records Management
System (ARMS).
The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove
the LOR due to the lack of evidence provided by the applicant.
IAW AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program,
paragraph 3.5, Administer a counseling, admonition, or reprimand,
verbally or in writing. If written, the letter states: What the
member did or failed to do, citing specific incidents and their
dates, what improvement is expected, that further deviation may
result in more severe action. That the individual has 3 duty days
to submit rebuttal documents for consideration by the initiator.
The person who initiates the Record of Individual Counseling
(RIC), Letter of Counseling (LOC), Letter of Admonishment (LOA) or
LOR has 3 duty days to advise the individual of their final
decision regarding any comments submitted by the individual. The
person who initiates a RIC/LOC, LOA, or LOR may send it to the
members commander or superiors for information, action, or for
their approval for file in the UIF or Personal Information File.
Include the members written acknowledgment and any documents
submitted by the member.
DPSIM can only discuss if proper procedures were followed in the
administration of the action. The applicant provided an
incomplete LOR, which does not prove it was completed improperly.
Nor does the applicant provide any other evidence (e.g. witness
statement, the rebuttal she claims she wasnt afforded to write)
that states it was not completed. All DPSIM has is what the
applicant claims and no hard evidence to support her claim.
The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant amended her request to ask that her EPR for period
ending 2 June 2012 be changed to reflect a senior rater
endorsement.
In further support of her request the applicant provides a letter
from her former deputy commander stating that based on the
AFBMCRs decision that the previous administrative action taken
was unjust and the 2 Jun 11 Referral Report has been removed from
her records, he now supports the applicant receiving a Senior
Rater Endorsement in Section VIII Final Evaluator's Position on
the AF FORM 911 for her June 2012 EPR.
The applicants response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Although the applicant requests that her EPR for the period
ending 2 Jun 12, be changed to reflect a senior rater endorsement,
she has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations. This Board is the highest administrative level of
appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first
exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. In
view of this, we find this portion of the application is not ripe
for adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate
level of appeal (ERAB) that has not first been depleted.
Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this portion of her application.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant
dismissing the LOR. We took 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 the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
her burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. Should
the applicant provide additional documentation such as the
completed LOR and or witness statements, we may be willing to
reconsider her request. In view of the above and in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00174 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 4 Mar 14.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIE, dated 27 Oct 14.
Exhibit E. Applicants Response, dated 9 Dec 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | bc-2012-04048
Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 25 Feb 10, be removed from her records. After careful review, they determined the evidence presents only a minor discrepancy which had no bearing on the administrative action itself. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03800
The applicant failed to provide any information or support from the rating chain of record on the contested report. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 3 May 2013 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). Additionally, we note AFPC/DPSIMs recommendation to remove the 6 May 2011 Letter...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05859
The reasons for the referral OPR were wrongful sexual contact with one female employee and sexual harassment of multiple female employees for which he received a LOR, UIF and CR action. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR, UIF and CR 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. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01655
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR/UIF/demotion action as served to the applicant, they conclude that its mention on the contested report was proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00053
_______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request for removal of the contested FAs. The applicant has failed to provide any information from the rating officials on the contested report. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00053 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under the provisions of AFI...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05071
The Letter of Counseling (LOC), dated 7 Sep 10; LOC, dated 18 Feb 11; Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 28 Mar 11; LOC, dated 28 Mar 11; and LOC, dated 15 Jun 11 be removed from her official military personnel records. FINDING (As amended by AFGSC/IG): NOT SUBSTANTIATED The applicants commander removed the 18 Feb 11 LOR from the applicants military personnel records as a result of the substantiated finding of reprisal in the AFGSC/IG Report. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03969
In support of her request, the applicant submitted copies of an excerpt of AFI 36-2406; AFPC/DPMM memorandum dated 11 April 2006; Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) letter dated 16 December 2005; two Air Force Review Boards Agency (AFRBA) letters dated 16 December 2005; Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) Decision; proposed EPR closing 14 January 2005; contested EPR closing 14 January 2005; Meritorious Service Medal documents; and EPR closing 14 January 2006 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00663
Her Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from her records. 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. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 30 July 2010 for...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01889
The applicant requests in the statement that eight areas of evidence be reviewed: 1. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of an 18-page congressional complaint of evidence, with attachments; the LOR and contested OPR with attachments, emails, a conversation transcript with her former commander, memoranda for record, a witness statement, character reference/witness lists, and extracts from her master personnel records. The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03495
Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. AFPC/DPSOE complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jun 11 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits...