RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00608

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Removal of the Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File
(UIF) and  Control  Roster  action  from  his  records  and  that  his
promotion line number to technical sergeant (E-6) be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Upon his return from his second six-month  deployment  in  support  of
Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, he was notified of an Article 15  action  for
failing to pay his government travel card in  a  timely  manner.   His
supporting documentation will show that he, with the assistance of his
deployed first sergeant, continuously sent travel vouchers to his home
unit.  He turned down the Article  15  in  lieu  of  a  court-martial;
however, his unit was advised that the case  was  not  substantial  to
proceed through the courts.  The Security Forces commander imposed  an
LOR, UIF and Control Roster action, which deleted his line number  for
E-6.  He has been unjustly accused of dereliction of duty.

In support of his request, applicant submits copies of the Article 15,
LOR and the rebuttal, UIF, Referral Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)
and rebuttal, a statement from the Area  Defense  Counsel  and  e-mail
traffic.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's  military  personnel  records  reflect  his  Total  Active
Federal  Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  as  13  August  1991.   He
reenlisted on 4 June 2005 for a period of four years and is serving on
active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5),  with  an  effective
date and date of rank of 1 November 1999.

Applicant's Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  profile  for  the  last
five reporting periods follows:

            Period Ending    Evaluation

              8 Feb 01 5 - Immediate Promotion
              8 Feb 02 5
              8 Feb 03 5
              8 Feb 04 5
             13 Dec 04 Not Rated - Removed by Order of
                    the Chief of Staff, USAF

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that, on  29
October 2004, applicant was notified  of  his  commander's  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment on him  under  Article  15,  UCMJ.   The
misconduct applicant had allegedly committed was  for  dereliction  in
the performance of those duties in that he negligently failed  to  pay
the full balance on his Government Travel Card  in  a  timely  manner,
between 1 March and 5 August 2004, in violation of Article  92,  UCMJ.
The applicant consulted a lawyer and demanded trial by  court  martial
in lieu of nonjudicial punishment.

On 23 November 2004, the applicant was  served  with  an  LOR  by  his
section commander for  failing  to  pay  his  government  travel  card
balance in a timely manner.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
LOR and submitted a rebuttal to the LOR on 30 November 2004.  The  LOR
was subsequently placed in a UIF and the applicant’s name  was  placed
on the Control Roster.

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
reveals no UIF/Control Roster action.  The applicant currently has  an
established DOS of 3 June 2009.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPFF recommends the application be denied.   DPFF  states  the
Travis AFB Staff  Judge  Advocate’s  office  advised  the  applicant’s
commander that the case was legally insufficient to  pursue  trial  by
courts-martial.  However, a commander is within his or  her  scope  of
authority to issue an LOR, establish a UIF,  place  a  member  on  the
Control Roster and retract a  promotion  line  number  for  applicable
members under their command in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.  The LOR
and UIF were executed in accordance with applicable  guidelines.   The
HQ AFPC/DPFF evaluation is at Exhibit B.


HQ  AFPC/DPPPWB  defers  to  the  recommendation  of  DPFF  concerning
establishment of the UIF and placement on the Control Roster.   DPPPWB
states the applicant was tentatively selected  for  promotion  to  E-6
during cycle  04E6.   He  received  promotion  sequence  number  (PSN)
3656.0, which would have  incremented  1 January  2005;  however,  his
promotion was cancelled due to his placement on  the  Control  Roster.
The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.


HQ AFPC/JA recommends  the  application  be  denied.   JA  states  the
applicant does not assert any error has occurred in the administrative
processes related to the service and processing of  his  LOR,  UIF  or
Control Roster.  The applicant has not refuted the factual  basis  for
his LOR/UIF or his placement on the Control Roster.  All actions taken
were within the authority and discretion of the applicable  commander.
The  loss  of  his  line  number  was  a  collateral  effect  of   the
administrative actions.   The  file  does  not  contain  evidence  the
commander’s  actions  were  arbitrary,  capricious  or  an  abuse   of
discretion.  In JA’s opinion, it would be inappropriate to  grant  the
applicant’s request in this case.  The HQ  AFPC/JA  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and  indicated  that  the
basis for his application is to argue the validity of the  commander’s
claims to issue the punishment.  The 60 CPTS and the 60  Air  Mobility
Wing/IG both acknowledge that as long as he was receiving per diem  at
the deployed  location,  interim  travel  vouchers  marked  for  Split
Disbursement were to be used to  make  GTC  (Government  Travel  Card)
payments.  This was the guidance he was given by  his  deployed  first
sergeant and that is the  reason  why  he  continued  to  pursue  that
avenue.  By using these procedures, there should have been  no  reason
why the  first  two  vouchers  failed  to  process.   If  the  section
commander’s comments in the LOR were true, he should have received  an
e-mail from 60 CPTS explaining why his travel vouchers were not  being
accepted.  He has provided a detailed explanation for the  reason  his
case was not taken to trial  and  the  circumstances  surrounding  the
travel vouchers/payments.  In his 14 years in the Air Force,  this  is
his first and hopefully last experience with  nonjudicial  punishment.
He has been wronged and unjustly accused of  dishonorably  failing  to
pay.  His Referral EPR, closing 13 December 2004, was removed from his
record by order of the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB)  for  the
reasons of which he is writing.  He requests  the  punishment  imposed
upon him be reversed.   The  applicant’s  complete  submission  is  at
Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

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
applicant’s submission and the actions taken against the applicant, we
are persuaded that relief is warranted.  Although  the  commander  may
have  been  within  his  discretionary   authority   in   taking   the
administrative actions she did in rendering the  Letter  of  Reprimand
(LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and Control  Roster  action,
we believe the applicant has created sufficient doubt as to whether he
deserved the  administrative  actions  taken  against  him.   In  this
respect, we note that, while deployed to a remote site  and  with  the
guidance and assistance of his deployed first sergeant, the  applicant
made good faith efforts to pay his debt via travel vouchers.  Once  he
was notified that the travel vouchers were  not  being  processed,  he
made personal payments.  Based on the evidence  provided,  we  believe
the applicant demonstrated that he  tried  to  make  payments  on  his
Government Travel Card in a timely manner.  The applicant  appears  to
have acted as responsibly and  appropriately  as  possible  given  the
guidance available to him at that time.  In addition, we  noted  that,
prior to the service under review, the applicant’s 14 years of service
were outstanding.  In our opinion, the applicant’s overall performance
outweighs the misunderstandings that transpired.  In addition, we note
that the applicant’s referral EPR, which cited the  LOR,  was  removed
from his records by the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  It is
our opinion that the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in  favor
of the applicant and voiding the LOR seems warranted.  Since  the  UIF
and the Control Roster action were driven by the LOR, which was  found
to be unwarranted, we also recommend the UIF and Control Roster action
be voided for consistency’s sake.  In view of the foregoing and in  an
effort to remove any possibility of  an  injustice,  applicant’s  line
number for promotion to the grade  of  technical  sergeant  should  be
reinstated.  We,  therefore,  recommend  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as 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:

      a.  The  Letter  of  Reprimand,  dated  23  November  2004,  the
Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)  and   Control   Roster   Action
established as a result  of  the  LOR,  and  any  and  all  references
thereto, be declared void and removed from his records.

      b.  He was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, with  an
effective date and date of rank of 1 January 2005.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 25 August 2005 and 12 September 2005,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
              Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00608.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Feb 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPFF, dated 1 Jun 05.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 Jun 05.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 5 Jul 05.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jul 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 29 Jul 05.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR BC-2005-00608




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:

      a.  The Letter of Reprimand, dated 23 November 2004, the
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and Control Roster Action
established as a result of the LOR, and any and all references
thereto, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his
records.

      b.  He was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, with an
effective date and date of rank of 1 January 2005.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency