RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02500
            INDEX CODE:  126.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated  26  Feb  02,  his  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) closing 3 Jul 02, and the  negative  information  contained  in
his Letter of Evaluation (LOE) closing  13  Feb  02,  be  removed  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  accused  of  allegations  that  were  misconstrued,  distorted,  and
fabricated.  There are three allegations in the LOR.   The  first,  that  he
borrowed $2.50 from a senior NCO  (MSgt  G---)  is  not  worthy  of  written
censure.   The  governing  AFI  states  that  borrowing  small  amounts   is
acceptable.  MSgt G--- is contending (and lying) that he borrowed $11,  that
he was borrowing money from her all the time, and that she was  upset  about
it.  However, no mention was made of anything to him nor  was  it  mentioned
in MSgt G's or the Deputy Team Chief's (LTC  M---)  statement.   The  second
accusation that he was disrespectful towards a senior  ranking  officer  and
was disobedient is a complete distortion of the truth.  The  senior  officer
(LTC S---) accosted  him  in  the  street,  off  duty,  in  front  of  local
pedestrians.  He felt threatened by LTC S---'s behavior and started to  walk
away, but recollected himself and got  into  a  van  to  face  more  hostile
behavior from him.  A senior NCO who witnesses the incident stated that  LTC
S--- was acting unprofessionally and acted "way out of line"  and  was  "too
harsh."  The third allegation that  he  assaulted  a  senior  NCO  by  twice
pushing her up against a doorframe, did not happen at all.  Not one  of  the
Lithuanian nationals present saw him allegedly shove her.   In  her  initial
statement, which was three pages long, not once  did  she  mention  that  he
shoved her.  It was not bought up until a month later in  second  statements
written by her and LTC M---.  Furthermore, there was no police  report,  and
his apartment was next  to  hers  and  he  was  not  reassigned  to  another
apartment.

The investigation was tainted before it even started.  Col W---  called  the
Military Liaison Team (MLT) team members together and told them  he  was  in
the process  of  putting  together  a  statement  outlining  allegations  of
misconduct  against  members  of  the  MLT.   Naturally  these   individuals
submitted statements and answered  questions  with  malice  and  discontent.
The investigation was an  internal  investigation  and  the  individual  who
conducted it was handpicked by --- the JCTP/MLT Director.   Applicant  can't
see how an internal investigation can be conducted in a  fair  and  unbiased
manner.  Furthermore, part of the investigation  involved  MEO/EEO  matters,
which were  conducted  by  Capt  S---  instead  of  the  MEO  officer.   The
investigation was supposed to be about allegations of "all" members  of  the
MLT but the focus was primarily on him.  There  were  several  other  issues
going on that were not addressed or pursued.  The JAG  for  EUCOM  conducted
business in a very unprofessional and borderline unethical manner.   He  was
the one who formulated the questions for Col S--- and he made every  attempt
to insulate Maj Gen R--- from the truth.  His defense  counsel  pointed  out
how the statements contradicted each other and it was obvious  that  certain
people had falsified their statements.  He even  suggested  a  lie  detector
test, which was declined by the JAG.

Basically  this  is  a  case  of  a  major  personality  conflict  that  got
completely out of hand. Certain members of the MLT team  did  not  care  for
him and likewise.  There were other infractions of  other  members  at  MLT;
however, statements by LTC M--- and MSgt G--- are the ones that led  to  his
reprimand.  If he actually committed these heinous acts,  why  did  he  only
receive an LOR and not an Article 15.

In support of his request, applicant provided personal statements,  timeline
of events, documentation associated with his LOR;  documentation  associated
with his  LOE;  AF  Form  1058,  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF);  and
documentation associated with his Equal  Opportunity  (EO)  complaint.   His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After serving various assignments as an enlisted Air National Guard and  Air
Force Reserve member, the  applicant  was  appointed  a  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force on 17  Aug  96.   He  was  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty on 3 Jan 00.  He has  been  progressively  promoted  to
the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and  with  a  date
of rank of 2 May 00.

The applicant was on a temporary duty (TDY) assignment for a 6-month  period
assigned to the Military Liaison Team (MLT) in  Lithuania.   He  received  a
verbal counseling on 6 Sep 01, formal counseling on 11 Sep  01  and  written
counseling on 11 Oct 01.  He was subsequently removed from the MLT team  and
sent to Stuttgart-Vaihingen City Germany, to complete his TDY.

On 6 Feb 02, he was given an LOR and an Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF)
was established  for  fraternization  and  violation  of  a  lawful  general
regulation,  disrespect  towards  and  willfully   disobeying   a   superior
commissioned officer, and conduct unbecoming an officer  and  gentleman  and
assault consummated by battery.  He received a referral LOE from  his  rater
at HQ USEUCOM and a referral OPR from his home station supervisor.

The following is a resume of his recent OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

            03 Jul 02        Contested Report
            03 Jul 01        Meets Standards (MS)
            02 Jan 01             (MS)
            02 Feb 00        Education/Training Report (TR)
            21 Apr 00             TR
            02 Jan 00        No Report Available

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states that with regard to the allegation  of
assault committed by the applicant  on  a  senior  NCO,  he  has  failed  to
present relevant evidence or any error or injustice warranting relief.   The
applicant insists inconsistencies in the statements prove that the  NCO  and
witnessing officer were both lying about  the  battery.   According  to  the
NCO's first statement, he brought her into an office for  a  dressing  down.
The NCO states that he was furious, shouted  profanities,  and  came  toward
her.  She was frightened and went to the door to get  away.   The  applicant
reached out to her and afraid he was going to grab her, she  put  her  hands
up and told him not to touch her.  As they left  the  office  the  applicant
continued to yell at  her.   The  witnessing  officer  approached  them  and
directed the applicant, who was described as in a state of rage, to go  into
another office while he tried to calm down the frightened  and  shaken  NCO.
The  witnessing  officer  described  the  applicants  tone  as  vicious  and
threatening, and he heard the NCO say "don't you touch me, get  back"  in  a
fearful tone.  The contact in question occurred when the applicant  and  the
NCO were standing at the door and the NCO was attempting to leave.   As  the
applicant exited the doorway, his shoulder hit her in the chest  and  pushed
her against the doorframe.  The NCO states there was enough  room  to  leave
without contacting her and she believed the  contact  was  deliberate.   The
NCO went into an adjacent office and  as  she  stood  by  the  doorway,  the
applicant came by her through  the  doorway  and  again  hit  her  with  his
shoulder as he passed, pushing her against the door-frame.   The  witnessing
officer also described the  second  battery  in  his  more  detailed  second
statement.

JA does not find the statements inextricably inconsistent  as  contended  by
the applicant.  The NCO and the witnessing officer  probably  did  not  even
know that the contact in  question  was  an  unlawful  battery.   Both  were
describing a very unpleasant altercation involving an  enraged  captain  and
an NCO.  The applicant pointed out that there were several foreign  national
employees in the immediate area that did not describe the  battery.   It  is
not clear from their  statements  that  they  were  in  a  position  to  see
everything that transpired.  Neither  denied  the  battery  occurred.   Both
agreed that the NCO was upset and  frightened  when  she  came  out  of  the
office and one heard the NCO  say  the  words  "don't  touch  me."   The  JA
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends  denial.   DPPPE  states  that  LOEs  are  written  to
document periods of performance too short to require a  performance  report,
or to  document  periods  when  someone  other  than  the  designated  rater
supervises the ratee.  LOEs are helpful when preparing performance  reports.
 LOEs are given to the ratee once a performance report is written;  however,
since the report was referral, the rater must determine whether the  OPR  is
necessarily based  on  the  LOE.   When  preparing  an  OPR,  if  the  rater
considers  the  referral  comments  serious  enough  to  warrant   permanent
recording, the rater prepares a performance report and  the  LOE  becomes  a
referral document attached to the report.  The applicant states  that  since
the rater included the "inaccurate" information from the LOE in his OPR,  it
should be voided.   He  has  failed  to  support  his  allegation  that  the
findings of the inquiry were  biased,  unjust,  or  inaccurate.   Air  Force
policy states that an evaluation report  is  accurate  as  written  when  it
becomes  a  matter  of  record.   The  applicant  has   not   provided   any
substantiated evidence to support his contentions that the  OPR  is  unjust,
based on allegations  that  were  completely  misconstrued,  distorted,  and
fabricated--articulated on the LOE.  The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPS recommends denial.   DPS  states  that  absent  evidence  of  gross
misconduct  or  injustice,  we  must  be  cautious  in  intervening   in   a
commander's decision-making authority when assigning administrative  actions
to subordinates.  There is no such evidence in this  case.   To  accept  the
applicant's interpretation of the situation is to accept a view of a  multi-
service, multi-national conspiracy to tarnish or destroy him.  That view  is
not supported in the  package  he  submitted.   The  package  contains  much
evidence of him being a difficult to work with officer whose  departure  was
welcomed by those who should have been  his  teammates.   His  presence  was
described by his team chief as "a cloud over the  team."   His  tendency  to
hurl threats at those who saw things differently,  even  those  in  superior
positions,  is  troubling  for  an  officer.   There  is   evidence   of   a
characteristic to misread a situation when he refers in his 7 Dec 01  letter
to three Lithuanian nationals who he got along with very well.  Yet  in  his
29 Jul 02 memo he says they made it very clear that they did  not  care  for
him.  The applicant and his Area Defense Counsel do  point  out  unexplained
and troubling inconsistencies in the reports of the alleged assault  on  the
senior NCO.  Even if, for argument, physical contact  did  not  take  place,
the circumstances were not inconsistent with the  likelihood  that  she  may
have well believed contact was imminent and chose to move  to  where  others
were present.  In short, whether or not the account of contact is  accepted,
his behavior may very  well  have  been  seen  as  communicating  a  threat.
Although there is conflicting evidence in this case,  the  preponderance  of
the evidence is consistent with the action taken by his commander.  The  DPS
evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that the DPS implication that there  was  a  multi-service,
multi-national conspiracy against him  is  a  gross  interpretation  of  his
statements.  However, he does imply that LTC L--- and MSgt G--- did in  fact
conspire against him and dupe everyone else involved.   The  other  military
personnel, who did not tell the  whole  truth,  did  so  merely  to  protect
themselves  from  possible  disciplinary  action.   Seeking  EEO  assistance
should not be misconstrued  as  "hurling  threats"  or  having  an  ulterior
motive.  He has every right to seek  their  assistance.   DPS  also  implied
that he  had  contradictory  statements  about  his  relationship  with  the
Lithuanian Nationals.  His first statement was written immediately after  he
had left Lithuania and he honestly thought he was on good terms  with  them.
He was unaware that he offended them and was  quite  shocked  and  upset  to
hear that they did not care for him, which he did not learn of until  months
later.  In his following statements  he  mentioned  it  to  show  that  even
though they did not care for him, they still stated that they  did  not  see
him assault MSgt G---, nor did they hear him yell, scream, or curse at  her.
 This would have been a perfect opportunity  for  the  Lithuanians  to  slam
him.  Even though they did not care for  him,  they  were  being  honest  in
their statements.  The only thing  they  saw  was  that  he  and  MSgt  G---
appeared to be upset.  She completely fabricated the yelling,  cursing,  and
assault and battery.  DPS further implies that the assault probably did  not
happen and is admitting that there is little if any evidence  to  show  that
he assaulted her; however, according to  his  "beliefs,"  since  she  "felt"
threatened, it's the same  as  assault  and  battery.   DPS  seems  to  take
pleasure in reciting the Lithuanian National's  comment  that  he  was  "the
worst officer he had ever  seen."   His  last  OPR  prepared  prior  to  his
deployment to Lithuania is not the OPR of "the worst officer."  He  received
many praises for his outstanding work, not to mention the fact that  he  was
selected for the position he was filling in Lithuania.   Regarding  the  DPS
statement that the preponderance of evidence is consistent with  the  action
of Maj Gen R---, applicant states that Maj Gen R---  never  really  came  to
that conclusion himself.  He relied on the advice of the JAG and  LTC  L---.
His requests to meet with Maj Gen R--- were not allowed.

DPPPE reiterated the verbiage on the LOR and states that he did not  provide
any substantiated evidence; however, she does not even have the  decency  to
explain why his evidence was unsubstantiated.

JA fails to realize that if  there  were  yelling,  screaming,  cursing  and
someone being physically assaulted, at least one of  the  Lithuanians  would
have seen and heard some of it.  The office area at MLT is  very  small  and
one would be able to see  and  hear  just  about  anything  and  everything,
especially yelling, screaming, cursing, and physical assault.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 that would warrant removal of the LOR  or
contested reports.  We find no evidence of error  in  this  case  and  after
thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support  of  his  appeal,
we do not believe he has suffered  an  injustice.   Evidence  has  not  been
presented which would lead us to believe that the  commander's  decision  to
reprimand the applicant was inappropriate.  In cases of this nature, we  are
not inclined to disturb  the  judgments  of  commanding  officers  absent  a
strong  showing  of  abuse  of  discretionary  authority.   Other  than  the
applicant's own assertions, we find no such showing here.  With  respect  to
the contested reports, evidence has not been presented which would  lead  us
to believe that the contested reports are not an accurate depiction  of  his
performance and demonstrated potential for  the  period  in  question,  that
they were based on inappropriate  considerations,  that  the  raters  abused
their discretionary authority, or that the reports are  technically  flawed.
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the  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.  In the absence of persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we
find no compelling 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-2002-
02500 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 03, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. George Franklin, Member
      Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 03.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 28 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPS, dated 3 Mar 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit G.  Applicant's Response, dated 31 Mar 03.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair