RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01358 (Case 2)
INDEX CODE: 126.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
A Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 14 Oct 97, and an Unfavorable
Information File (UIF), dated Nov 97, be removed from her permanent
records.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She received the LOR due to unfair treatment and undue emphasis on
isolated incidents. The evaluators were biased towards her and were
not able to be objective in their evaluation of her or her
performance. She believes that, because she wrote her senator in 1996
concerning her commander’s improper behavior, undue emphasis was
placed on isolated incidents and she received unfair treatment.
In support of her request, applicant submits a copy of a memorandum,
dated 11 May 98, a copy of the LOR and her rebuttal to the LOR, and
additional documents associated with the issues cited in her
contentions (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 8 Dec 94, the applicant was appointed a captain, Biomedical
Sciences Corps (BSC), Reserve of the Air Force, and was voluntarily
ordered to extended active duty on 13 Feb 95.
The applicant provided copies of the 14 Oct 97 LOR, issued by her
flight commander, which automatically established a UIF; and, her
appeals of the LOR, dated 16 and 22 Oct 97 (Exhibit A).
The applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint on 15 Jan 97
alleging that the Mental Health Flight (MHF) Chief, 82d Medical Group
(MDG), reprised against her, mistreated unit personnel and improperly
ordered changes to two of her psychological evaluations. The 12 May
97 Summary Report of Investigation (SROI) concluded that the evidence
did not substantiate six of the applicant’s allegations; however,
three of the allegations were substantiated (see attached SROI at
Exhibit A).
Applicant's OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 12 Feb 96
follows:
Period Ending Evaluation
# 12 Feb 96 Meets Standards (MS)
## 12 Feb 97 MS
12 Feb 98 Does not Meet Standards (Referral)
# Top report at the time she was considered Below-the-Promotion Zone
(BPZ) and nonselected for promotion to major by the CY97A Central
Major Board, which convened on 3 Feb 97.
## Top report at the time she was considered BPZ and nonselected for
promotion to major by the CY98B Central Major Board, which convened on
6 Apr 98.
On 30 Sep 98, she was released from active duty and transferred to the
Obligated Reserve Section (ORS) of the Air Force Reserve on 1 Oct 98.
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals a
UIF disposition date of 9 Nov 2001.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Commander’s Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, stated that the
applicant received her Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for an inappropriate
and unprofessional public display and loss of control during a
conversation in her duty section with colleagues. The LOR stated the
applicant was previously counseled about this type of behavior via a
Letter of Admonishment (LOA) and a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 29
Aug 97 and 30 May 97 respectively. The LOR was automatically placed
in an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). The applicant provided a
rebuttal to the LOR on 16 Oct 97.
DPSFC indicated that on 1 Feb 96, new accountability rules for officer
personnel were implemented. The rules stated that any officer
receiving a LOR would have a UIF established automatically. The UIF
would remain in the personnel database (computer system) for a period
of four years and was not authorized to be removed early, unless the
commander stated the officer did not commit the offense listed in the
LOR. On 1 May 98, enhanced accountability rules for officer personnel
were implemented. The enhancements provided for wing commanders to
elect one of three options for UIFs already in existence (as was the
case with the applicant). The options were to maintain the original
four-year disposition (expiration) date, convert the UIF to the new
two-year disposition date, or remove the UIF in its entirety. The
applicant’s wing commander elected to maintain the four-year
disposition date on the applicant’s UIF.
DPSFC stated that the applicant had an opportunity to provide a
rebuttal to the LOR; and, the wing commander had an opportunity to
shorten the expiration date of the UIF or remove it completely, and
decided against it. DPSFC recommended the applicant’s request be
denied. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 3 Aug
98 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. The applicant’s
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were
duly noted. Although the applicant believes she received the LOR due
to unfair treatment and an undue emphasis on isolated incidents, the
IG Report of Inquiry revealed no evidence that the Mental Health
Flight (MHF) Chief singled out the applicant for harassment or in any
way deliberately made the working environment worse for her than most
other members of the MHF. We note that the reason the applicant
received the LOR was due to her inappropriate and unprofessional
public display and that she also received a Letter of Admonishment and
a Letter of Counseling for previous public displays of this type.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing and in the absence of sufficient
evidence that the information used as a basis for the LOR was
erroneous or that there was an abuse of discretionary authority, we
find no basis to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s
request.
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 issue(s) involved.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in
Executive Session on 6 January 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael Barbino, Member
Ms. Kathy Boockholdt, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSFC, dated 15 Jul 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Aug 98.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03217
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA reviewed this application and states that although the applicant's conduct towards Captain XXXX may have been well intentioned, it was nonetheless “unduly familiar" and unprofessional." AFPC/JA notes that the applicant points out that “unprofessional relationships" are defined by paragraph 2.2 of AFI 36-2909. The following members of the Board considered this application in...
The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 23 July 1997, be declared void and removed from his records. 'ILove, John K!I1 or anything similar, until after this healing blessing. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C , The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA reviewed this application and states that although the applicant's conduct towards Captain B--- may have been well intentioned, it was nonetheless \\unduly familiarrr and unprofessional.
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
In regards to the applicant stating that the contested EPRs are inconsistent with previous performance; the EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that should the Board void the contested report in its entirety, upgrade the...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03020
The LOR is used to reprove, correct, and instruct subordinates who depart from acceptable norms of conduct or behavior, on or off duty, and helps maintain established Air Force standards of conduct or behavior. The relationship was not sexual until after his wife was divorced. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant received an LOR for being involved in an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with the wife of a subordinate member of the Air Force.
The LOR is used to reprove, correct, and instruct subordinates who depart from acceptable norms of conduct or behavior, on or off duty, and helps maintain established Air Force standards of conduct or behavior. The relationship was not sexual until after his wife was divorced. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant received an LOR for being involved in an inappropriate and unprofessional relationship with the wife of a subordinate member of the Air Force.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01312 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131 COUNSEL: FRED L. BAUER HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 20 Apr 96 through 19 Apr 97 be declared void and removed from his records and his corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
The applicant provided a rebuttal dated 23 Feb 99. Based on the applicant’s appeal and at the request of HQ AFMC/DO, HQ AFMC/JA performed another legal review on 12 Mar 99 and concluded that the FEB findings and recommendations were legally sufficient and recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a new FEB. A review of the FEB transcripts and exhibits by HQ AFMC/JA shows no reason to believe that the board did not properly weigh all testimony presented in this case.
On 18 January 1994, the applicant received a second LOR for failure to pay a debt to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES). In regards to the applicant stating that the contested EPRs are inconsistent with previous performance; the EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance noted during that period, not based on previous performance. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0098
For these acts of misconduct, the respondent received a verbal counseling, a letter of counseling (LOC), a memorandum for record (MFR), four letters of reprimand (LOR), an unfavorable information file (UIF), entry on the control roster, and punishment under Article 15, UCM. (Tab 1) 4, EVIDENCE CONSIDERED FOR THE RESPONDENT: The respondent is a 22 year old security forces journéyman who enlisted in the Air Force on 7 May 97. f. On or about 10 Aug 98, you failed to go at the time to your...