RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02232
            INDEX CODE:  126.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Letter of Reprimand, dated 27 Jan 03, be removed from his Personal
Information File (PIF).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The information used to support the dereliction of duty allegation was
without merit, and the LOR was an abuse of discretion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies  of  the  LOR,
his response to the LOR,  and  other  documents  associated  with  the
matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on  1  Oct  00.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 26 Sep 85.

On 27 Jan 03, the applicant received an LOR for dereliction  of  duty,
in that on 23 Jan 03, an inspection revealed that he failed to  comply
with squadron standards, as outlined in his Flight’s Standard  Letter,
dated 1 Oct 02, which was  a  major  contributing  factor  toward  his
failure to achieve his quarterly mission.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFM recommended  denial  indicating  the  use  of  the  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.  According to AFPC/DPSFM, an individual has three
duty days upon receipt to submit rebuttal documents for  consideration
by  the  initiator.   In  their  view,  the  applicant  was  correctly
authorized three duty days upon receipt of the LOR to submit  rebuttal
documents for consideration which was done in a timely manner.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  24
Oct 03 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
available evidence, a majority of the Board is sufficiently  persuaded
that the applicant’s  LOR  for  dereliction  of  duty  may  have  been
somewhat harsh.  The majority noted that the applicant was  recruiter.
It appears that the basis for the LOR was the applicant’s  failure  to
meet his recruiting goals.  However, the majority was  convinced  that
the applicant made necessary efforts to do so, and that a lesser  form
of administrative action probably would have been more appropriate  in
this case, especially in light of his apparently otherwise good record
as a recruiter.  Furthermore, the majority is of the opinion that  the
LOR no longer serves a useful purpose.  In view of  the  foregoing,  a
majority of the Board recommends that  the  LOR  be  voided  from  his
records.

_________________________________________________________________

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 27 Jan 03, and any and all documents  and  references
pertaining thereto, be declared void and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02232 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 03, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

By  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Russell voted to deny the  applicant's  request  but
did not wish to submit a minority report.  The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 16 Oct 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Oct 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair


                   MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                   FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

FROM: SAF/MR

SUBJECT:    AFBCMR  Application of

      I have carefully reviewed this case and agree with the minority member
that there is insufficient evidence of either an error or an injustice
warranting approval of the applicant’s request for voiding of the Letter of
Reprimand (LOR) in question.

      Applicant is an Air Force Recruiter assigned to the 337 Recruiting
Service Squadron (337th RCS).  On January 27, 2003, he received the LOR for
dereliction of duty, in that on January 23, 2003, an inspection revealed he
failed to comply with squadron standards, which was a major contributing
factor toward his failure to achieve his quarterly mission.

      Applicant appealed to the Board requesting the LOR be removed from his
Personal Information File (PIF), contending the information used to support
the dereliction of duty allegation was without merit, and the LOR was an
abuse of discretion.  After consideration of his appeal, a majority of the
Board believed the LOR was too harsh and recommended the LOR be voided and
removed from the applicant’s records.

      Although the applicant makes an impressive argument that he was not
derelict in his duty and submitted several documents purporting to support
his assertion, given the presumption of regularity on the part of the
military, I do not believe his uncorroborated assertions are sufficient to
conclude his supervisor lacked an adequate basis to issue the LOR.  This
belief is supported by the fact the applicant appeared to have made the
same presentation to the recruiting commander who was closest to the
situation without success.  I note too, even when provided a copy of the
advisory opinion recommending denial of his request, for reasons of his
own, he chose not to respond.

      Given the total circumstances of this case, I agree with the office of
primary responsibility (OPR) that the request should be denied.  The LOR
would indeed be harsh if it was based on an isolated instance of
substandard performance.  However, the Letter of Direction alluded to by
the OPR appears to infer this was not the case.

      In view of the foregoing, it is my decision the applicant’s request
that the LOR be voided and removed from his records be denied.

                                       MICHAEL L. DOMINGUEZ
                                       Assistant Secretary
                                       (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)