RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00426
INDEX CODE: 126.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Aug 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) he received on 3 Dec 04 be removed from
his existing Unfavorable Information File (UIF).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The LOR was not issued in accordance with the governing instruction
(AFI 36-2907).
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of the LOR and
UIF, and excerpts from AFI 36-2907.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
first lieutenant, having been promoted to that grade on 29 Apr 03.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 1 May 01.
On 3 Dec 04, the applicant received an LOR after an investigation
revealed that from approximately May 04 through Sep 04 his excessive
use of government e-mail for unofficial purposes led to the
misuse/unauthorized abuse of government systems. His abuse included e-
mail discussions, which included explicit sexual content. The LOR was
added to the applicant’s existing UIF.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPF recommended denial indicating that Lieutenant Colonel (Lt
Col) B---, Commander, 37th Mission Support Squadron (37 MSS/CC) is the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) administrative unit commander
for the 37th Training Wing (37 TRW) staff personnel. The applicant is
assigned to 37 TRW/XP and detailed out to 37 TRW/IG--both are wing
staff agencies within the administrative control/command of 37 MSS/CC.
As a result, Lt Col B--- was authorized to issue the LOR and was not
required to obtain any endorsement, either from a supervisor or wing
staff agency chief. In AFPC/DPF’s view, the LOR was issued
appropriately.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 8 Apr
05 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 error or injustice. The applicant’s complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find his assertions or the documentation
submitted in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to warrant
corrective action. The evidence of record indicates the applicant
received an LOR after an investigation revealed that his excessive use
of government e-mail for unofficial purposes led to the
misuse/unauthorized abuse of government systems. His abuse included e-
mail discussions, which included explicit sexual content. The LOR was
added to the applicant’s existing UIF. After a thorough review of the
facts and circumstances of this case, we find no evidence which would
lead us to believe the information used as a basis for the LOR was
erroneous, or that there was an abuse of discretionary authority. In
view of the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to
the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable
action on the applicant’s request the LOR be voided and removed from
his records.
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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2005-00426 in Executive Session on 19 May 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPF, dated 28 Mar 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02843
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02202
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02202 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: A Letter of Reprimand (LOR), with an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), dated 27 March 2001, be removed from his records. His situation was reviewed by the Air Force Office of Special Investigation commander (AFOSI/CC) on 15 June 2001 and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC 2008 00538
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a statement from her counsel; and, copies of her LOR, response to the LOR, Referral OPR, request to the Evaluation Review Appeals Board (ERAB) to remove the contested report, work schedules, memorandum for record, Performance Feedback, character references, ERAB decision, Promotion Recommendation, Officer Performance Reports, Education/Training Report, award and decoration documents, and articles on Nursing. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is...
AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2006-00189
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: SAFIMRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 781 50-4742 lNDORSERlENT 1 FROM: DATE: 11/17/2006 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition w i l l be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03604
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03604 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 JULY 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 24 September 2004, and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his records and the Referral Officer Performance Report...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03522
The applicant’s argument seems to be that since the Air Force ultimately paid his claim, he did nothing to warrant an LOR or a referral OPR. First, the applicant’s commander could have found that he committed fraud when he filed his original claim with the Air Force. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jul 10, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01474
On 3 Jul 12, AFPC/DPSOA requested the applicant provide the documents she contends were added to her appeal package without due process. On 24 Jul 12, in response to DPSOA’s request, she stated after submitting her appeal package to the Force Support Squadron, she inquired about the status and was informed her unit had provided additional documentation (i.e. LOC, dated 7 Sep 11, LOC, dated 3 Nov 11, and a LOR, dated 2 Mar 12) to legal for their recommendation to the group commander. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02525
Counsel indicates that AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory also incorrectly states that the PLOA is not the reason for the referral TR because the TR only mentions the applicant being admonished and not the PLOA itself. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/JA provided an evaluation of the applicant’s case. While rejecting counsel’s assertion the letter of...
AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD01-00032
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD01-00032 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable, change the Reason for discharge and change the RE Code. ISSUES: The applicant was discharged with a General Discharge for Misconduct — Minor Disciplinary Infractions. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD-01-00032 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD (Former A1C) 1.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03338
He states his commander also recommended he be removed from the Air Force Central Command CMSgt Candidate listing. DPE notes that based on the actions that led to the applicant receiving a letter of reprimand on 13 Sep 04, the wing commander recommended removal of the applicant’s name from the list, which was subsequent approved by the PACAF commander. In regards to the curtailment of his overseas assignment, the applicant states that the reasons for his curtailment were not elaborated on...