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 (OPR), closing 27 September 2004, be corrected.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The commander was predisposed to issue an  LOR/UIF  despite  solid  evidence
that the use of the government travel card for a  $90.00  hotel  reservation
was a  mistake.   The  commander  erroneously  found  that  payment  on  the
government travel card was not timely made.  However, the payment  was  made
within the time allotted  pursuant  to  the  Air  Force  Instruction  (AFI).
Despite evidence submitted in his behalf, he received an  LOR/UIF,  Referral
OPR, and a “Do Not Promote this Board” Promotion Recommendation  Form  (PRF)
for the Fiscal Year 2006A Air Force  Reserve  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection
Board.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Air Force  Reserve  in  the  grade  of
major as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA).  On 2  September  2004,
a  Commander  Directed  Investigation  (CDI)  was  completed  substantiating
misuse of a government travel card and  delinquency  during  the  period  16
March 2004 through 6 August 2004.   Specifically,  that  applicant  made  an
impermissible charge, mismanaged his cash advances and daily  charges  while
performing temporary duty (TDY), and then failed to make  a  timely  payment
on the amount owed from the TDY.  On 24 September 2004, the  wing  commander
issued the applicant an LOR  for  the  unauthorized  charge  and  for  being
delinquent in making payment on his government (GOV) card bill,  and  a  UIF
was established.  After considering the applicant’s response, on 1  November
2004, the wing commander issued an Addendum to the LOR stating,  in  effect,
that applicant was 20 days late paying off his government travel card.

Applicant received a referral OPR for the period 26 September  2003  through
27 September 2004.  Section V, Performance Factors, of the report  indicates
the applicant’s professional qualities did not meet standards.  Section  VI,
Rater Overall Assessment, contains the statement, “[Applicant’s]  misuse  of
his  government  credit  card  leads  me  to  question  his   judgment   and
officership  and  indicates  that  his  potential  for   continued   reserve
attachment to the Lackland legal office is limited.”  He received a “Do  Not
Promote this Board” Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Fiscal  Year
2006A Air Force Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/JA recommends the application be  denied  and  states,  in  part,  that
applicant was provided all the due process entitled  for  an  administrative
reprimand.  He presented basically the  same  arguments  considered  by  the
wing commander before amending the LOR, conceding it  was  more  appropriate
to state the applicant was 20 days late paying  his  GOV  travel  card  bill
than to state he was  delinquent.   However,  the  commander  chose  not  to
withdraw the LOR or reduce it to a Letter of Counseling (LOC).  Further,  an
LOR for an officer is a mandatory UIF entry.  Absent abuse of  authority,  a
commander’s final decision that an officer’s  dereliction  warrants  an  LOR
cannot be overturned on appeal.  In addition, the commander’s early  removal
of the LOR from the  UIF  is  not  warranted.   There  is  no  evidence  the
commander abused her authority or that she was predisposed to offer an  LOR.
 The allegations against the applicant were thoroughly investigated and  two
GOV card violations were substantiated.  In July 1994, while an active  duty
Judge Advocate General (JAG) captain assigned to JAG School at Maxwell  AFB,
applicant received an Article 15 for using  the  official  American  Express
card  for  personal  expenses  and  for  failing  to  pay  for  the  charged
transactions  in  a  timely  manner.   In  view  of  this,  an  LOR/UIF  was
reasonable and within the range of administrative options available  to  the
commander.  The referral OPR followed because  the  applicant  received  the
adverse action, i.e., LOR, during the period of the report.

The ARPC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  16
December 2005, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, as of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

________________________________________________________________

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  agree
with the opinions and recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate  and  adopt
his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

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  Docket  Number  BC-2005-03604
in Executive Session on 26 January 2006, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
                       Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/JA, dated 14 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair