RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01304
                             INDEX CODE:  134.01

        XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE

        XXXXXXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) received on 10 November 1997  and  Unfavorable
Information File (UIF) be removed from his records.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received an LOR/UIF on 10 November 1997, a referral  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) for the period 14 January 1997 through 13 January 1998,  and  a
“Do Not Promote” promotion recommendation form for the  CY98  MC/DC  Central
Selection Board.

In late 1998, he submitted an appeal asking that his LOR  and  referral  OPR
be removed.  This appeal was successful for  the  OPR  but  the  OPR  Review
Board did not  have  the  jurisdiction  to  remove  the  LOR.   The  LOR  is
contained in the OPR and is completely covered in the OPR appeal package.

This is a very complicated and time-consuming process, all stemming from  an
unjust LOR.  This LOR has set off  a  chain  of  events  that  has  been  an
administrative nightmare, damaged his  career,  and  unless  his  record  is
corrected, he will have little chance of continuing in the Air Force.

In support of his  request,  he  submits  a  personal  statement,  character
references, HQ AFPC/DPPPAE Decision, w/atchs, and other documentation.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.

On 10 November 1997, applicant received an LOR  for  the  following  reason:
openly defying his commander.   The  commander  cited  an  unwillingness  to
implement an appointment-only system in flight medicine as  the  culmination
of a series of incidents in which  the  commander  tried  to  implement  Air
Force policies and the applicant failed to carry  out  his  direction.   The
commander  also  noted  the  applicant  defied  him  in  the   presence   of
subordinates.

On 21 January 1998, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
file his 10 November 1997 LOR in his Officer Selection Record (OSR).

On 22 January 1998, applicant submitted a written presentation  in  rebuttal
to the LOR; however, the appeal was denied and the  LOR  was  filed  in  his
Unfavorable Information File (UIF).

On 21 December 1998, applicant’s appeal to remove his OPR rendered  for  the
period 14 January 1997 through 13 January 1998, was considered  and  granted
by the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).

Applicant’s UIF reflects a two year disposition date.   It  expired  in  the
personnel database on 20 November 1999.

In April 1999, applicant’s appeal to remove  the  memo  to  the  CY98  MC/DC
Central Selection Board president was approved.

On 2 August 1999, applicant’s appeal to void the  contested  PRF  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2401, was  considered  and  denied  by  the  Evaluation
Report Appeal Board (ERAB).

OPR profile since 1994 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  1 Jun 94              Meets Standards (MS)
                  1 Jun 95        MS
                  1 Jun 96               MS
                 13 Jan 97               MS
                 13 Jan 98         Report was removed by Order of
                                   the Chief of Staff,  USAF
                 13 Jan 99           MS
                 13 Jan 00           MS

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Commanders  Programs  Branch,  HQ   AFPC/DPSF,   reviewed   the
application and states that the use of an LOR by commanders and  supervisors
is an exercise of supervisory authority  and  responsibility.   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  LOR  is  not
required to be  legally  sufficient.   It  is  a  tool  for  commanders  and
supervisors to reprove or instruct subordinates.   Additional  changes  were
made to the officer UIF program effective 1 May 1998.  The  Chief  of  Staff
directed a review of all officer UIFs by the  officer’s  wing  commander  or
equivalent.  The wing commander had three options:  retain  the  four  years
disposition (expiration) date, shorten the disposition date  to  two  years,
or  remove  the  UIF  (and  associated  documents)  in  its  entirety.   The
commander and supervisory decision making authority is considered  paramount
when applying administrative actions to subordinates.  The  derogatory  data
was administered properly and  the  commander  believed  he  had  sufficient
cause to administer the Letter of Reprimand and  establish  the  Unfavorable
Information File.  Right or  wrong  is  not  always  the  prevailing  issue.
Supporting our chain of command is the basic fabric  of  military  life  and
without it they cease  to  be  a  military  organization.   Therefore,  they
recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that for being  asked
to express his honest opinion, with integrity and all due  respect,  he  was
accused of being openly defiant.  He and others who also  expressed  similar
opinions, acted within the acceptable norm of military  behavior.   Although
he respectfully disagreed with the commander on several occasions, there  is
absolutely no evidence that he  refused  to  or  did  not  comply  with  his
orders.  The commander had inappropriate reasons for using  an  LOR  against
him, and this was an abuse of his “commander’s discretion.”

An LOR does not have  to  be  “legally  sufficient”  goes  against  the  Air
Force’s basic system of laws and fairness.   The  top  Air  Force  value  is
integrity.  To tolerate anything less makes this declared value a  sham  and
just another example of not “walking our talk.”  As a tool  to  reprove  and
to instruct a subordinate, an LOR may be appropriate at times.  But  to  use
that on a lieutenant colonel as a tool  for  simply  expressing  a  contrary
opinion  to  the  commander  when  asked  to  do  so,  is  in  his   opinion
inappropriate.  Perhaps a letter of counseling, or just a face to face  talk
that “I don’t want to hear your opinion if it is contrary to what I want  to
do, even if I ask for it,” would have been more appropriate.  However,  none
of this occurred.  The derogatory data that the commander  used  was  biased
and vindictive.  His sufficient cause was arbitrary and capricious.

He understands the need to support the chain of command  and  a  commander’s
discretion, especially in times of war or crisis, but his  situation  merely
involved  a  routine  business  meeting!   If  the  right  or  wrong  of   a
commander’s decision can never be questioned in such  a  situation,  then  a
commander can pretty much do what  he  wants,  sometimes  even  conveniently
ignoring integrity if it serves his purpose.  If a  commander’s  use  of  an
LOR in an inappropriate manner, as he believes was the case  with  him,  can
not be questioned, then there is no defense.  He has  always  supported  the
chain of command.  Whenever the commander made a decision, he  complied  and
acted with integrity and always in a  professional  and  respectful  manner.
He states that a referral OPR,  which  was  based  on  this  LOR,  has  been
successfully removed, as has the  memo  to  the  promotion  board  president
explaining it.  His “Do Not Promote” promotion  recommendation  is  also  in
the process of appeal.  These documents stem from the LOR and  it  would  be
especially unfortunate that some of the derogatory documents are thrown  out
while  others  remain;  and  based  on  the  very  same  unjust  and  unfair
information.

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA, reviewed this application  and  states
that the issue as to whether the  evidence  supported  a  decision  to  take
adverse action is a close call; they defer that decision to the  Board.   If
the Board, after reviewing all of the  evidence,  concludes  that  applicant
did, in fact, oppose the commander’s orders to  implement  an  “appointment-
only” system and did, in fact, openly defy the commander, then an LOR  would
appear to be fair and consistent with the criteria set out  above.   If,  on
the other hand, the Board finds that applicant did not  commit  the  alleged
misconduct, and finds that the criteria was not met,  they  would  recommend
that the Board order the LOR removed from the applicant’s records.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and states that his conduct  was
at all times motivated by his desire to do  the  right  thing  for  the  Air
Force, his commander,  and  his  parents.   His  behavior  was  in  complete
harmony with the standards of performance, conduct, bearing,  and  integrity
of  his  position.   An  LOR  under  these  circumstances  is  an  abuse  of
discretion.  He believes this was an  extreme  injustice  and  motivated  by
personal bias.  He performed duties with all due  respect.   Part  of  doing
business in any organization is to keep the boss fully informed so  that  he
can make the best decision and hopefully stay out of trouble.  The  LOR  was
reprisal for his foresight and advice.

Applicant's complete response is attached 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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice  warranting  removal  of  the  LOR
received on 10 November 1997, and  the  UIF  be  removed  from  his  record.
While we conclude that the LOR issued against the applicant  was  consistent
with the prevailing regulation, we believe that the  punishment  was  unduly
harsh.  In this respect, we  note  that  the  applicant  was  asked  by  the
commander to attend several open meetings.  At these meetings the  applicant
was asked for his honest opinion on various  proposals  that  the  commander
was thinking  of  implementing.   On  several  occasions  applicant  was  in
disagreement with the commander, but there is no evidence  that  he  refused
to or did not comply with his commander’s orders.  It appears that this  was
merely a difference of opinion between  applicant  and  his  commander.   We
note that on 20 November 1999,  the  LOR  and  UIF  were  deleted  from  the
personnel database, so there is nothing to remove.  However, when  applicant
met the CY98 MC/DC Colonel Selection  Board  the  LOR  was  a  part  of  his
record.  In addition, we note that the Officer Performance  Report  rendered
for the period 14 January 1997 through 13  January  1998,  which  referenced
the LOR, was removed by the Evaluation Reports and Appeals Board  (ERAB)  on
21 December 1998.  Therefore, we find it only  equitable  that  the  LOR  be
removed from his Officer Selection Record that was  before  the  CY98  MC/DC
Colonel Selection board.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend his  record
be corrected to the extent indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Letter of  Reprimand,  dated  10
November 1997, be declared void  and  removed  from  his  Officer  Selection
Record which  was  considered  by  the  Calendar  Year  1998  MC/DC  Colonel
Selection Board.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to  the  grade
of Colonel by a Special Selection Board for the  Calendar  Year  1998  MC/DC
Central Colonel Board.

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 19 October 1999 & 18 May 2000 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 April 1999, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSF, dated 28 June 1999.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 July 1999.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 August 1999.
      Exhibit F. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 10 January 2000.
      Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 January 2000.



                             RITA S. LOONEY
                             Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-01304





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Letter of Reprimand,
dated 10 November 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from
his Officer Selection Record which was considered by the Calendar Year 1998
MC/DC Colonel Selection Board.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of Colonel by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1998
MC/DC Central Colonel Board.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency