RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02525
            INDEX NUMBER:  111.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  9 Feb 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A Letter of Admonition issued to him on 16 Jun 03 be declared void and
removed from his record.

The Training Report (TR) rendered on him  for  the  period  3  Jul  02
through 9 Jun 03 be declared void and removed from his record.

Remove any mention of the LOA issued 16 Jun 03 and the  TR  closing  9
Jun 03 from his record.

He be reconsidered by the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC)
“Commando Eagle” commander  selection  board  (Added  in  rebuttal  at
Exhibit F).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a 22-page  Brief  of  Counsel,  with  64  attachments,  applicant’s
counsel states that the applicant’s requests should be granted for the
following reasons:

        a.  The LOA issued to the applicant on 16 Jun  03  is  clearly
described as a punitive action pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ).  However, the LOA does not  comply  with  the
requirements of Article 15, the Manual for Courts Martial  (MCM),  and
AFI 51-202 for the issuance of a punitive LOA (PLOA)  and,  therefore,
is legally defective.

        b.  The TR rendered on the applicant while at Air Command  and
Staff College (ACSC) for the period 3 Jul 02 to 9 Jun 03 is  defective
because it refers to the illegal PLOA.

        c.  In addition to the reasons set forth above, counsel opines
the TR should be removed from the applicant’s  record  because  it  is
flawed and grossly unjust.  It blatantly and intentionally  failed  to
accurately characterize the  applicant’s  many  accomplishments  while
attending ACSC.  Counsel states that the ACSC Commandant,  who  signed
the TR, and the applicant’s student squadron commander, who issued the
LOA,  both  demonstrated  a  pattern  of  violating  legal  rules  and
regulations.  They also demonstrated an  overly  zealous  and  grossly
disproportionate  effort  to  punish  the  applicant   for   a   minor
transgression  (missing  class)  committed  by  numerous  other   ACSC
students who escaped any similar  action.   Counsel  states  that  the
Commandant and student squadron commander’s illegal  actions  included
the following:

                 (1)  Violating the applicant’s rights  under  Article
31, UCMJ, during the investigation.

                 (2)  Issuing the defective LOA  contrary  to  Article
15, the MCM, and AFI 51-202.

                 (3)  Failure to process the TR as a  referral  report
under AFI 36-2406 until directed  by  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) in early 2005.

Counsel discusses the LOA in depth and notes  that  the  LOA  included
three references cited as the legal authority for the LOA:

        a.  Article 15, UCMJ.

        b.  Military Justice Manual, COMDTINST M5810.1D,  subparagraph
1.E.2.a.

        c.  Personnel Manual, COMDTINST.

Counsel opines that the fact the LOA references Article  15  makes  it
clear the student squadron commander intended the LOA to  be  punitive
under the UCMJ rather than  a  less-serious  administrative  LOA.   He
further opines that the second reference reinforces the point the  LOA
was to be punitive and issued under military justice rules.  He  notes
that the second reference is an internal military  justice  manual  of
the US Coast Guard and that neither  the  applicant  nor  the  student
squadron commander were members of the  Coast  Guard.   Similarly,  he
notes that the third reference had no  applicability  because  it  too
refers to an internal operating manual of the Coast Guard.

Counsel states that the LOA was also legally defective  based  on  the
rules set forth in AFI 51-202.  He  further  notes  that  the  student
squadron commander, as  a  lieutenant  colonel,  did  not  have  legal
authority to impose action under Article 15 upon any  officer  of  any
rank.

Counsel discusses the TR and that because it references  the  “illegal
LOA,” opines it is defective.  He also states that it  is  simply  not
sufficient to remove the wording regarding  the  LOA  because  the  TR
failed to fairly,  accurately,  justly,  and  completely  capture  and
reflect the applicant’s outstanding performance and achievements while
a student at ACSC.  Counsel references statements  by  other  officers
involved with ACSC as verification the applicant was treated unjustly.

Counsel states the applicant’s rights under Article 31  were  violated
because he was questioned by the commandant without being  advised  of
his rights.  Counsel provides an in-depth discussion of this issue and
provides a number of references  regarding  the  actions  against  the
applicant.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel (Lt Col).  He was selected for promotion to Lt Col  two  years
below-the-zone.  The applicant attended Air Command and Staff  College
(ACSC) in residence at Maxwell AFB from 3 Jul 02 through 9 Jun 03.  On
16 Jun 03, the  applicant  was  administered  a  “Punitive  Letter  of
Admonition” by his student squadron commander (Lt Col I) for departing
his place of duty without coordination from his operations officer  or
the approval of the commandant.  The final Training Report rendered on
the applicant for his attendance at ACSC, and signed by the commandant
(Brig Gen  (Sel)  L),  contained  the  comment,  “Admonished  for  not
following written policies on  class  attendance.”   The  TR  was  not
referred to the applicant.

In Jan 05, the applicant appealed to  the  Evaluation  Reports  Appeal
Board (ERAB) to void the TR.   Instead  of  granting  the  applicant’s
request, the ERAB corrected the report administratively  by  referring
it to him on 28 Mar 05 for  comment.   On  1  Apr  05,  the  applicant
submitted his referral TR response to the  Commander,  Air  University
(Lt Gen L).  After considering the  applicant’s  comments,  Lt  Gen  L
signed an AF Form 77 on 19 Apr 05  concurring  with  the  commandant’s
original assessment and, effectively, denying the applicant’s  request
to void the referral TR.

Additional facts pertinent to this case are contained in the Air Force
evaluation prepared by AFPC/JA at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request  to  void  the
TR.  Based on the memo of record from the evaluator, the applicant did
deceive him regarding his departure from class.  They  note  there  is
more of an integrity issue as to where the applicant was  rather  than
his leaving the class.  The LOA is not the  reason  for  the  referral
report.  The written comment “admonished  for  not  following  written
policies on class attendance” does not mention receiving an LOA.  They
note that the meaning of admonish is to counsel against  something  to
be avoided.  They opine that even if the LOA is removed, the TR should
remain valid.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPF recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  They note that
the LOA was administered in accordance with AFI 36-2907  and  was  not
filed in the applicant’s permanent records.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel responded to the Air  Force  evaluations  by  reiterating  the
relief requested by the applicant.  He also states that the  applicant
has experienced further negative consequences  since  the  application
was filed and adds a request that after removal of the LOA and TR  the
applicant be reconsidered by the Air Force Special Operations  Command
(AFSOC) “Commando Eagle” commander selection board.

Counsel provides the following direct response to  the  evaluation  by
AFPC/DPPPE:

        a.  The applicant disagrees with the action  by  the  ERAB  to
refer the TR after a period of 22 months had elapsed.   The  applicant
believes the TR should have been voided and notes  that  the  22-month
delay was in some ways damaging to  the  applicant’s  career  such  as
preventing his selection for command by the last  two  AFSOC  Commando
Eagle boards.

        b.  They disagree with AFPC/DPPPE’s  assertion  the  applicant
failed to provide any evidence supporting his claim.   They  note  the
applicant  submitted  a   thorough,   well-substantiated   application
consisting of a 22-page legal memorandum  along  with  64  attachments
containing statements and other documents in support of his claim.

Counsel also provides rebuttal regarding the statement “an evaluator’s
responsibility  is  to  accurately  assess  the  ratee  as  they  deem
necessary.”  Counsel opines that in the applicant’s case, they  failed
to do so.  Counsel references several  of  the  attachments  submitted
with his initial submission as evidence in support of the  applicant’s
assertions.  In rebuttal to the statement “The vast  majority  of  Air
Force personnel serve their entire career with honor and  distinction;
therefore failure to document misconduct which reflects departure from
the core values of the Air Force is a disservice  to  all  personnel,”
counsel  opines  the  statement  fails  to  acknowledge   that   minor
indiscretions should not haunt  personnel  their  entire  career.   He
notes the applicant’s career has been and continues to  be  superb  as
documented throughout the 64 attachments submitted.

In response to AFPC’s assertion that “Only evaluators  in  the  rating
chain can determine the appropriateness of how the report was written,
counsel questions why then would the Air Force even have an ERAB.

Counsel discusses AFPC/DPPPE’s assertion the applicant did  not  state
why one correction,  voiding  the  report,  is  better  than  another,
correcting  the  report  by  referring  it.   Counsel   states   their
application demonstrated the “PLOA,” which is reflected in the TR  was
legally flawed and should be declared void.  Processing the  TR  as  a
referral report 22 months subsequent to it being written  has  allowed
mention of the admonition to remain  permanently  in  the  applicant’s
record for 29 months as of Dec 05.  Counsel states this  is  erroneous
and unjust.

Counsel states  that  AFPC/DPPPE’s  advisory  incorrectly  claims  the
applicant deceived the  evaluator  about  his  departure  from  class.
Furthermore, the evaluator’s memorandum to which the  advisory  refers
does not prove the allegation the applicant  deceived  the  evaluator.
At most, there had been a misunderstanding by the evaluator which  was
caused by the evaluator’s own, unfortunately, inept and legally flawed
methods of investigating the allegations.  Counsel notes the  disputed
language in the TR does not even refer to any alleged  deception.   To
the contrary, the disputed language in the TR mentions “not  following
written policies on class attendance.”  It does not mention  deception
or lack of integrity, directly or even indirectly.

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.
The advisory attempted “incorrectly  and  unjustly”  to  minimize  the
language in the TR  regarding  the  admonishment  by  equating  it  to
nothing more than a counseling.  Counsel states that to support  their
argument,  AFPC/DPPPE   included   an   unattributed   definition   of
“admonish.”  Counsel points out that the advisory failed  to  note  or
acknowledge that AFI 36-2907 indicates clearly that an admonishment is
“more severe” than a record of counseling.  Counsel also provides  the
definition of admonition and reprimand as covered in  Part  V  of  the
Manual for Courts-Martial.  Counsel indicates that the language in the
TR said “admonished” not the lesser “counseled.”  He also states  that
the only admonition the applicant received was the written PLOA.

In response to the evaluation prepared by AFPC/DPF, counsel provides a
point by point rebuttal.  Counsel states that by their  own  admission
AFPC/DPF is not the office with the  expertise  to  address  the  PLOA
because the PLOA was not merely an “administrative” LOA under AFI  36-
2907, but was in fact a grossly flawed attempt to be a “punitive”  one
under Article 15 of the UCMJ.

Regarding  AFPC/DPF’s  assertion  the  PLOA  was  not  filed   in   an
unfavorable information file (UIF), master personnel record group,  or
officer selection record and therefore is not a record that has to  be
voided or removed, counsel states that this  analysis  is  flawed  and
ignores certain crucial points.  First, the PLOA still exists on paper
and many senior officers in the applicant’s current chain  of  command
and in the Special Operations community at large are aware of both the
PLOA and the TR’s reference to it.  Those senior officers  have  made,
and will continue to make, decisions that  determine  the  applicant’s
further  assignments  and  promotions.   Counsel   again   notes   the
applicant’s nonselection for  command  by  the  AFSOC  Commando  Eagle
board.  Second, counsel states it has been  clearly  proven  that  the
PLOA is legally insufficient and  flawed.   Third,  the  applicant  is
entitled to have a superior authority declare the PLOA and TR void  so
the applicant can communicate that “official determination to various,
numerous superior officers and others.

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.  They recommend denial of the  relief  requested  by
the applicant with rationale summarized as indicated below:

        a.  Punitive  Letter  of  Admonition  (PLOA).   The  applicant
attacks the legal sufficiency of the PLOA on several grounds.   First,
he presumes that it is “crystal clear” that Lt Col I intended the PLOA
to be  a  punitive  nonjudicial  action  rather  than  a  less-serious
administrative admonition because the heading of the  PLOA  references
Article 15 of the UCMJ.  Second, the applicant  asserts  there  is  no
jurisdictional legal basis for the PLOA  because  it  purports  to  be
administered in accordance with  two  internal  Coast  Guard  military
justice manuals.  Finally, the applicant argues that Lt Col  I  failed
to comply with the strict requirements of AFI  51-202  in  taking  the
punitive nonjudicial  punishment  action.   Specifically,  AFI  51-202
requires the use of an AF Form 3070 to administer an  Article  15  and
AFI 51-202, Table 3.2, n.1 prohibits officers in the grade of  Lt  Col
and below from imposing nonjudicial punishment on an officer.  AFPC/JA
agrees that  the  format  of  the  PLOA  legally  fails  to  meet  the
requirement of Article 15 and clearly does not comply with AFI 51-202,
but does not believe the applicant has been deprived of  any  material
Article 15 or UCMJ right.  AFPC/JA does not  believe  Lt  Col  I  ever
intended the PLOA to be an Article 15.  They agree with AFPC/DPF  that
the PLOA was nothing more than a strongly  worded  administrative  LOA
under  AFI  36-2907,  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)   Program.
AFPC/JA compares the  requirements  for  administering  a  counseling,
admonition, or reprimand, in writing to the content of  the  PLOA  and
concludes  that  the  PLOA  meets  the  basic  requirements   for   an
administrative LOA.  AFPC/JA further notes that the contested PLOA was
never filed in any of the applicant’s official records.   Accordingly,
there is no record of the letter that can be voided and  removed  from
the applicant’s record as requested.   AFPC/JA  opines  the  applicant
suffered no harm from the admonishment other than his  veiled  attempt
to tie it to  his  referral  Training  Report  (TR)  by  claiming  the
referral  TR  refers  to  the  PLOA.   AFPC/JA  also   considers   the
applicant’s response to the advisory that because he has a paper  copy
of the PLOA that others in his chain  may  also  have  a  copy  to  be
without merit.

        b.  Referral TR.  Applicant challenges the referral TR on  the
basis it refers to the PLOA.  In doing so, applicant’s counsel asserts
the only admonishment the applicant received  was  the  written  PLOA,
which was legally insufficient and  fatally  flawed.   Therefore,  the
applicant asserts that  because  the  PLOA  is  legally  insufficient,
anything  that  references  the  PLOA   is   also   rendered   legally
insufficient.  AFPC/JA believes the applicant’s  claim  is  misplaced.
They note the TR does not reference the PLOA  but  merely  states  the
applicant was admonished for not following written policies  on  class
attendance.  They further note the applicant concedes in his  response
to the referral TR he was “Verbally” counseled by Lt Col I on 9 Jun 03
before he was presented with the contested PLOA.  AFPC/JA states  that
the applicant’s overemphasis on the format of the disciplinary  action
taken against him loses sight of the underlying misconduct that formed
the basis of the action and fails to recognize that  the  referral  TR
comment refers separately to the underlying misconduct independent and
apart from the admonishment action.  AFPC/JA believes their  rationale
is corroborated by Lt Gen L’s decision to dismiss the PLOA and,  as  a
result, preclude it from being placed into a UIF  or  the  applicant’s
PIF, while subsequently denying the applicant’s  appeal  to  void  the
entire referral TR.  They note that if Lt Gen L thought  the  referral
TR was inaccurate, flawed or grossly unjust, he had the  authority  to
recommend removal of the  referral  TR.   AFPC/JA  views  Lt  Gen  L’s
decision not to recommend removal of the referral TR as indicative  of
his intent to document that the  misconduct  occurred  during  the  TR
reporting period and that the applicant  was  properly  admonished  or
counseled regarding that conduct.

AFPC/JA agrees with  AFPC/DPPPE  there  is  insufficient  evidence  of
record to establish that the original TR was unjust or  wrong  or  the
information in the report is not accurate.  They also concur with  the
decision to refer the report to the applicant  rather  than  void  the
entire report.  They consider the applicant’s argument it was improper
to refer the report 22 months after  it  became  a  matter  of  record
unpersuasive, particularly considering the fact the applicant  himself
waited 18 months before contesting the report.

        c.  The AFSOC “Commando Eagle” Commander Selection Board.   In
the applicant’s  rebuttal  to  the  AFPC/DPPE  and  AFPC/DPF  advisory
opinions, the applicant alleges another  error  or  injustice  as  the
basis of his appeal, that the referral TR is currently preventing  him
from being selected to a command position.  They opine  that  even  if
the AFBCMR were to void the referral TR, the Board does not  have  the
authority to direct AFSOC to reconsider  its  prior  command-selection
decisions.   AFPC/JA  states  that  as  explained  above,  it  is  the
applicant’s underlying misconduct that is “purportedly” preventing his
command selection and not any legal error made regarding his  referral
TR.  AFPC/JA notes that the decision by the Evaluation Reports  Appeal
Board to refer the TR provided the applicant with  an  opportunity  to
have his side of the story considered by the  command-screening  board
in making future assignment decisions.

The complete evaluation is at exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to  the  additional  evaluation,  applicant’s  counsel
states that just like the  two  earlier  evaluations  this  evaluation
should be disregarded  because  it  fails  to  defeat  or  effectively
counter the thoroughly documented application submitted in this  case.
Counsel argues that AFPC/JA discarded  its  objectivity  by  going  to
“extreme lengths to prop up legally defective and  unjust  actions  by
senior personnel taken against the applicant.

Counsel notes the following specific problems with the advisory:

        a.  It ignored and never rebutted literally dozens of  written
statements by military officers (including numerous general  officers)
who support the applicant’s arguments that an  injustice  occurred  in
this case.  Counsel refers the Board to the letters submitted with the
original application.

         b.  It  went  far  beyond  the   point   of   reasonableness,
objectivity and  fairness  to  argue  that  the  “Punitive  Letter  of
Admonition” was really just a lesser administrative LOA despite  being
marked otherwise.  Counsel asserts that AFPC/JA offered absolutely  no
evidence to support  their  assertion  they  knew  Lt  Col  I’s  “real
intent.”  Counsel further argues that AFPC/JA intentionally  chose  to
disregard the plain wording that made it clear the PLOA  was  punitive
and issued pursuant not only to Article 15, UCMJ, but also  two  Coast
Guard internal instructions.  Counsel opines that even for the sake of
argument Lt Col I did intend to issue an  administrative  LOA,  rather
than the PLOA, which he signed, Lt Col I, as both a senior officer and
squadron commander, must be held to what he actually signed, not  what
he may have later wished to sign.  Counsel asks the Board to  consider
the irony of the applicant being punished for “not  following  written
policies on class attendance,” while his two ACSC  superiors  violated
his rights under federal law (Article 31, UCMJ) as well as AFI  51-202
with the PLOA and AFI 36-2406 with the failure to refer the  ACSC  TR.
Counsel opines that the AFBCMR should hold the government, represented
by ACSC, to the same standards to which the government  has  attempted
to hold the applicant.

        c.  It  failed  to  address  written  statements  by  military
officers  who  support  the   applicant’s   argument   his   ACSC   TR
underrepresented his many positive achievements.   Counsel  references
statements by some of the applicant’s classmates  where  they  discuss
their own TRs in direct comparison with their first hand knowledge  of
the applicant’s  outstanding  achievements  while  at  ACSC.   Counsel
opines that this evidence proves the TR evaluator’s “heavy-handed  and
vindictive” approach towards the applicant.

        d.  AFPC/JA fails to acknowledge that  according  to  military
law, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and  Air  Force  Instruction,  the
term “admonish”  clearly  carries  a  greater  stigma  than  the  term
“counsel.”  Counsel notes that AFI 36-2907, Chapter 3, paragraphs 3.2,
3.3,  and  3.4   distinguish   between   administrative   counselings,
admonishments, and reprimands.  Counsel states that paragraph  3.3  of
AFI 36-2907 clearly indicates that an admonishment  is  “more  severe”
than a letter or record of counseling.  Furthermore,  Part  V  of  the
Manual for Courts-Martial states in paragraph 5c(1),  “Admonition  and
reprimand are  two  forms  of  censure  intended  to  express  adverse
reflection upon or criticism of a person’s conduct.”  Counsel  asserts
that the evaluation by AFPC/JA is misleading, incomplete and unjust in
its  effort  to  equate  an  admonishment  with  the  unwritten   oral
counseling, which the applicant also  received.    Counsel  notes  the
disputed language in the TR clearly said admonished,  not  the  lesser
counseled.

        e.  It conveniently misrepresents  and  ignores  many  of  the
applicant’s arguments so as to enable AFPC/JA to offer  a  “desperate”
defense of the legally flawed and unjust PLOA and  ACSC  TR.   Counsel
offers examples to support his argument by  noting  that  AFPC/JA  set
forth a lengthy summary of the “Background and Facts” in  a  way  that
conveniently  glossed  over  the  legal  errors   committed   by   the
applicant’s ACSC chain of command during the investigation.  They also
presented contested issues  as  facts  by  attributing  the  promotion
“ceremony” wording to the applicant, who never claimed  he  was  at  a
promotion ceremony, but rather a promotion celebration.  Counsel  also
discusses how AFPC/JA failed  to  rebut  the  evidence  and  arguments
presented that the applicant’s Article 31 rights  had  been  violated.
Counsel notes  that  AFPC/JA  acknowledged  their  argument  that  the
Punitive Letter of Admonition still exists on  paper.   However,  they
conveniently ignored the following arguments as  pointed  out  in  the
prior rebuttal:

              (1)  That even more significantly, many senior  officers
in the applicant’s  current  chain  of  command  and  in  the  Special
Operations community at large are aware of both the PLOA  and  the  TR
reference to it.  Those senior officers have made, and  will  continue
to make, decisions that determine the applicant’s  future  assignments
and promotions.  Counsel notes the applicant’s experience  in  talking
with the present chain of command is that the “admonished” language in
the TR leads them to ask him specifically, “Did you receive an  LOA?,”
meaning a written admonishment, not an oral admonishment and certainly
not a lesser oral or written counseling.
              (2)  The  applicant  is  entitled  to  have  a  superior
authority formally declare the PLOA and the TR which refers to it void
so  the applicant  can  communicate  that  official  determination  to
various, numerous superior officers, particularly those in his current
chain of command and the Special Operations community, as well as  his
ACSC chain of command and others who were later told of the report.

        f.  AFPC/JA was so “hyper-critical” of the  applicant’s  case,
while ignoring most of  the  supporting  evidence,  they,  in  effect,
raised the burden of proof to such a level  that  no  applicant  could
ever prevail.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  While rejecting  counsel’s  assertion
the letter of admonition issued the applicant was a defacto Article 15,
we do note that the letter of admonishment failed to  comply  with  Air
Force standards regarding such administrative actions.   While  AFPC/JA
states that the letter of admonition was  not  filed  in  any  official
record and, therefore, cannot be removed and voided, we believe that if
any copies of the letter do exist, they should be destroyed to preclude
any possibility they will  be  used  or  referred  to  in  the  future.
AFPC/JA opines the applicant’s referral TR is justified  by  more  than
the letter of admonition he was served.  However, we believe the letter
of  admonition  was  the  primary  basis  for  the   referral   report.
Additionally, we have  concerns  over  the  fact  the  report  was  not
referred to the applicant until almost two years after it was  written,
which may have compromised  his  ability  to  adequately  respond.   In
reviewing the evidence of record, which included samples of TRs written
on other officers who attended ACSC, we note that the  TR  rendered  on
the applicant appears to be purposely written to a lower standard  than
his contemporaries for what appeared to be at  least  equal  or  higher
performance on part of the applicant.  As such,  we  believe  the  best
course of action in this case is to void and remove  the  TR  from  the
applicant’s records.  Our determination in this case was influenced  by
our view that the errors made in administering the LOA  and  to  timely
refer the TR tainted the overall process and gives the impression of an
injustice to the applicant.  Because of the potential  negative  impact
of actions such as those taken against the applicant  on  an  officer’s
career, we believe they should be done properly, timely and be able  to
withstand the most intense scrutiny.  In this case, we do  not  believe
the actions meet these standards.
Therefore,  we  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 Punitive Letter of Admonition issued to  him  dated  16
Jun 03 and any and all documents and references pertaining  thereto  be
declared void and removed from his records.

        b.  The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, rendered on him
for the period 3 Jul 02 through 9 Jun 03 be declared void  and  removed
from his record.

        c.  He be reconsidered for selection for  command  by  the  Air
Force Special Operations Command  (AFSOC)  “Commando  Eagle”  commander
selection board.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered  Docket  Number  BC-2005-
02525 in Executive Session on 22 February 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 11 Oct 05.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPF, dated 15 Nov 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 05.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Dec 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 6 Jan 06.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 05.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 1 Feb 06.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2005-02525


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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:

            a.  The Punitive Letter of Admonition issued to  him  dated
16 Jun 03 and any and all documents and references  pertaining  thereto
be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records.

            b.  The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, rendered on
him for the period  3 Jul 02 through  9  Jun  03  be,  and  hereby  is,
declared void and removed from his record.

            c.  He be reconsidered for selection for command by the Air
Force Special Operations Command  (AFSOC)  “Commando  Eagle”  commander
selection board.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency