RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02843
      INDEX CODE:  110.00, 121.00,
                        126.03, 131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  18 Mar 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Unfavorable Information File (UIF)  be
removed from his records.

2.  His "Do Not  Promote"  (DNP)  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  be
removed from his records.

3.  One day of leave be restored to his leave account.

4.  His records be corrected to reflect a  Permanent  Change  of  Assignment
(PCA) on 20 Jan 04, rather than 12 Jul 04 and that his  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) and duty history be corrected accordingly.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was notified of intent to impose Article 15 action against him on  9  Jan
04, which was withdrawn because 31 TRW/CC and 2AF/CC  did  not  support  the
action.  He was later served with an LOR and a UIF was established  for  the
same actions the Article 15 action  was  initiated  for.   This  action  was
completed the date his OPR was closed and as a  result  he  received  a  DNP
recommendation on his PRF.  On 24 Nov 03, he submitted a leave  request  for
leave to be taken from 27 Nov 03 through 1 Dec 03.  He realized  his  return
flight might be delayed and he advised LTC S--- that  he  might  not  return
until 2 Dec 03 and that he would amend his request upon his return.  LTC S--
- at the time indicated that would be alright.   A  previous  leave  he  had
taken was verbally extended as well.  Upon his return to work on 3  Dec  03,
he was told by Capt M--- that his leave ended on 1 Dec 03 and  that  he  had
been AWOL.  He spoke with LTC S--- about  his  leave  and  reminded  him  of
their conversation prior to his departure, which LTC S---  did  not  recall.
He believes he has been considered guilty from the beginning of  the  entire
process and has received unfair  and  unjust  treatment  and  representation
throughout.  He believes that Capt M--- and  LTC  S---  labeled  him  as  an
obstructionalist and the misperceptions of him  are  further  aggravated  by
Capt M---, whom he had previously been  in  an  altercation  with  when  she
requested a  complete  review  of  personnel  records,  which  she  was  not
authorized access to.  He is consistently being told that he  has  not  been
doing his job and is not working out.  The allegations against him are  only
supported by  a  statement  from  Capt  M---  and  no  investigation  by  an
impartial party was ever conducted.

During his leave he went to Ft Lauderdale, FL to attend  a  wedding.   While
there he interviewed and inquired about  ROTC  positions  available  at  the
University  of  Miami  and  he  traveled  to  Daytona  Beach  to  speak   to
perspective cadets at Embry Riddle  University.   He  also  talked  to  high
school students interested in attending ROTC or enlisting in the Air  Force.
 He did this at his own expense with  the  exception  of  one  day's  travel
which he used the Government Travel Card (GTC)  to  offset  the  costs.   He
used the GTC for travel solely for official travel  associated  with  career
progression and inquiries.  He has used his GTC in the past and it  has  not
been an issue until LTC S--- assumed command.

He was moved to the Wing Plans section on 20  Jan  04,  not  12  Jul  04  as
reported in his duty information.

His Article 15 package and Personal Information File (PIF) was  lost  and  a
new one was not created until 27 May 04.   Prior  to  rendering  a  referral
OPR, the AFI states his PIF and UIF must be reviewed to ensure  an  accurate
unbiased and uninflated report.   This  could  not  have  been  accomplished
because his PIF was  lost.   He  submitted  a  rebuttal  but  was  told  his
rebuttal was not sufficient and a UIF was established.  While reviewing  his
records on 2 Jun 04, he noticed his duty title had been changed  to  a  non-
existent position.  He made several inquiries about the title  but  received
no response until he spoke to the Inspector General.  Once he had  done  so,
the matter was resolved.  He discovered that his PIF contained  an  AF  Form
2096 dated 18 May 04, with the duty title change, which was never  submitted
although it was changed in PC-III.  On 24 Jun 04, the  referral  OPR,  which
had been previously lost was re-referred to  him.   Throughout  this  entire
process, his case was mismanaged and mishandled as  evidenced  by  the  fact
his OPR, rebuttal, PIF, and proposed Article 15  action  were  lost  several
times.

He was not allowed the minimal time to respond to the DNP and  PRF  and  was
not given time to  respond  prior  to  the  convening  of  the  board.   The
statement on the PRF mentioning punitive or administrative punishment is  in
violation of the AFI.  He is required to be provided a copy of  the  PRF  30
days prior to the board but did  not  receive  it  until  3  days  prior  to
mailing out the PRF to AFPC.  A memorandum that should  have  been  attached
to the PRF was never accomplished.

In support of his  request,  applicant  provided  two  applications  to  the
AFBCMR, a personal statement, and documentation associated with the  actions
taken against him.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on  29
Apr 01 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 1 May 01.   He
was progressively promoted to the grade of first lieutenant, having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 29 Apr  03.   The  applicant
had approved leave from 27 Nov 03 through 1  Dec  03.   On  9  Jan  04,  the
applicant  was  notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to  recommend
nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the UCMJ for dereliction  in  the
performance of his duties in that he failed to return to the local  area  of
Lackland Air Force Base, prior to  expiration  of  his  leave,  or  ask  for
extension of his authorized leave in advance of expiration; and  for  on  or
about 19 May 03 and  2  Dec  03,  using  of  his  GTC.   Subsequent  to  the
notification, the Article 15 action  was  withdrawn.   On  22  Apr  04,  the
applicant was given an LOR for failing to return to duty on  2  Dec  03  and
for using his GTC on four occasions while on leave.   Applicant  received  a
DNP recommendation for the Calendar Year  2004B  Central  Captain  Selection
Board, and was not selected for promotion by that board.

The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL ASSESSMENT

            30 Apr 04  Does Not Meet Standards
            30 Apr 03        Meets Standards (MS)
            30 Apr 02                   MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPF recommends denial.  DPF states the applicant was required  to  take
leave  for  a  local  soccer  tournament  while  others  in  his  unit  were
authorized Permissive TDY (PTDY).  He was charged one day  of  leave  on  16
Jan 04.  DPFFOC contacted his commander  and  was  advised  that  the  other
members were permitted to use a special pass to participate  in  the  soccer
tournament; however, 37TW/JA recommended against allowing the  applicant  to
use a special pass due to pending legal actions against  him.   AFI  36-3003
gives the unit commander the authority to grant PTDY within  the  guidelines
of Table 7 and to grant a special pass within the  guidelines  of  Table  8.
The commander was within his authority when he denied PTDY and special  pass
requested by the applicant and the LOR and UIF were administered  correctly.
 The DPF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPASB recommends denial.  DPASB  states  wing  level  PCA  actions  are
approved at unit level.  His commander stated he was detailed to  37  TRW/XP
on 20 Jan 04 pending resolution of  an  internal  investigation.   Once  all
associated administrative actions were complete, he  was  PCA'd  to  the  XP
office effective 12 Jul 04.  Details are approved utilization of airmen  and
do not require official PCA action.

DPASB recommends that the organization on the  applicant's  OPR  closing  30
Apr 04 be corrected to reflect in block 8, Organization  and  Location,  the
organization as  of  the  close-out  date.   The  organization  should  have
included "with duty at..." indicating the  organization  where  he  actually
performed duty.  The DPASB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states all the applicant offers  in  rebuttal
to the actions taken against him are his own opinions and his  own  versions
of the events as they transpired.  The bottom line is that the only  persons
who were in a  position  to  grant  an  extension  to  his  leave  were  his
commander and squadron operations officer.  These two  individuals  did  not
approve a leave beyond the date contained in the LOR and did not approve  an
extension of his leave as he alleges.  The time spent on leave  is  in  fact
non-duty related and the use of the GTC during that time was  improper.   He
has failed to sustain the burden of proving an error or  injustice  and  the
preponderance of the evidence establishes that he did not return from  leave
as scheduled, did not obtain proper permission to extend his leave, and  his
use of the GTC while on leave was improper.  The filing of the  LOR  in  the
UIF was proper and comments and references to these  incidents  on  the  PRF
and the DNP recommendation were proper.  The JA evaluation is at Exhibit  E.


AFPC/DPPPEB recommends denial.  DPPPEB states  for  the  captains'  process,
senior raters prepare PRFs on officers  receiving  DNP  recommendations.   A
memorandum must accompany the DNP PRF.  He contends he was not  provided  an
opportunity to respond to his DNP.  The  senior  rater  did  provide  him  a
memorandum dated 20 Jul  04  stating  he  may  write  a  memorandum  to  the
Management Level  (ML)  if  he  feels  the  recommendation  was  inaccurate,
unjust, or unfair.  He prepared a memorandum to the ML  and  his  memorandum
was reviewed.  The ML President, stated in a follow-up  memorandum  that  he
reviewed the information provided by the applicant and it was  his  decision
to keep the DNP recommendation on the PRF.  The applicant  points  that  the
governing  AFI  states  it  is  inappropriate  to  reference   punitive   or
administrative actions; however, he fails  to  note  that  paragraph  3.7.27
states that if desired, the type of administrative or judicial action  taken
may be used.  There is no documentation in the package  supporting  that  he
PCA'd on 20 Jan 04.  Although he claims the PCA action occurred  on  20  Jan
04, he was actually detailed to another  unit  and  as  such,  none  of  the
evaluation information should be changed.  DPPPEB  agrees  with  DPASB  that
his 30 Apr 04 OPR should be changed to reflect  "with  duty  at  37  TRW/XP"
based on the fact that he  was  on  detail  to  another  unit.   The  DPPPEB
evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  1
Apr 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we  are  not
persuaded by the evidence presented that the  requested  corrective  actions
are warranted.  In this respect, we find no evidence  that  his  commander's
decision to reprimand the applicant and establish a  UIF  was  inappropriate
nor are we persuaded that the commander abused his  discretionary  authority
in doing so.  We are not persuaded by his contentions that the PRF  prepared
for the CY04B captains' board  was  not  prepared  in  accordance  with  the
governing instructions, that the applicant was denied  rights  to  which  he
was entitled to during the PRF process, or that the  PRF  is  an  inaccurate
assessment of his  potential  to  serve  in  the  next  higher  grade.   The
applicant  contends  that  his  request  for  PTDY  was  denied   based   on
inappropriate  considerations.   However,  after  review  of  the   evidence
presented, it is our opinion that since commanders  have  the  authority  to
determine whether or not PTDY is permissible, and his  commander's  decision
was based in part on the recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate,  we  do
not believe the applicant was  treated  inequitably  as  he  contends.   The
applicant request the date of his PCA be corrected  to  reflect  the  action
took place on 20 Jan 04, rather than 12 Jul 04.  However,  it  appears  that
he was detailed to  the  37  TRW/XP  pending  resolution  of  administrative
matters.  Since it is a common and accepted practice in the  Air  Force  for
commanders to detail members of their units to  another  unit,  without  PCA
action, we do not believe an error exists in this case.  Therefore,  in  the
absence of evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.   Notwithstanding  the  above,  sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been
presented to demonstrate the existence of  an  error  with  respect  to  the
contested OPR.  The Air Force has noted his OPR  incorrectly  indicates  his
organization during the period of the report  as  37th  Logistics  Readiness
Squadron (AETC), Lackland AFB TX.  Since he was detailed to 37 TRX/XP for  a
considerable period of the report, we agree with the Air Force that his  OPR
should be  corrected  to  indicate  such.   Accordingly,  we  recommend  his
records be corrected as indicated below.

5.  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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that  his  AF  Form  707B,  Company  Grade
Officer Performance Report, prepared for the period 1 May  2003  through  30
April 2004, be amended in Section 8,  Organization,  Command,  Location,  to
include "with duty at 37 TRW/XP."

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2004-
02843 in Executive Session on 24 May 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPF, dated 8 Nov 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPASB, dated 2 Feb 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 24 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 2 Mar 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Apr 05.




                             MARILYN M. THOMAS
                                             Vice Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-02843




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 his AF Form 707B, Company
Grade Officer Performance Report, prepared for the period 1 May 2003
through 30 April 2004, be amended in Section 8, Organization, Command,
Location, to include "with duty at 37 TRW/XP."







                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency