RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03593
		INDEX CODE:  126.03
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The letter of reprimand (LOR) he received on 17 Aug 07 be 
removed from his records.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The LOR is unjust, unfair, and the result of a grave mistake.

The LOR caused him to lose his line number for staff sergeant 
and denied him reenlistment.  He had minimal rights and due 
process with the LOR.

He has tried every measure to plead his innocence and reverse 
the injustice.  The injustice boiled down to a case of his word 
against the word of two females.

One possible reason or theory for the LOR is that one of the 
females is the daughter of a lieutenant colonel and this may 
have added pressure on his commander to take action. He cannot 
think of another reason as to why he has been punished so 
harshly, other than personal bias, when the best evidence does 
not show he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

He does not believe he should be denied reenlistment based on a 
LOR as legally dubious as the one he received.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his 
LOR, letter denying him reenlistment, a copy of his AF IMT Form 
416, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, copies of his 
written appeals, a witness statement, and a copy of the Military 
Equal Opportunity (MEO) Informal Complaint Summary Report, with 
attachments. The applicant's complete submission, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 25 Nov 02 and is 
currently serving in the grade of senior airman.

The LOR did not cause the applicant to lose his line number for 
staff sergeant.  However, his commander’s non-recommendation for 
promotion did.  The commander also concurred with the 
supervisor’s recommendation to deny reenlistment (which also 
made him ineligible for promotion). 

Other relevant facts are contained in the Air Force evaluations 
at Exhibits C, D, and E, respectively.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSI recommends denial.  The use of a LOR by commanders and 
supervisors is an exercise of supervisory authority and 
responsibility.  An individual has three (3) duty days upon 
receipt to submit rebuttal documents for consideration to the 
initiator.  The LOR states that the applicant specifically made 
an inappropriate gesture to two females.  The applicant 
conducted himself in such a manner that made both females feel 
uncomfortable in their work environment and brought discredit 
upon himself, his squadron, and the Air Force.  Although the 
applicant provided a written rebuttal and a character witness 
statement, the commander decided to place the LOR in the 
applicant’s existing unfavorable information file (UIF).  He has 
failed to provide evidence to support his claim that the LOR was 
unwarranted or unjustified.

The complete AFPC/DPSI evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial.  On 24 Aug 07, the applicant’s 
commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation to deny 
reenlistment.  The applicant acknowledged the commander’s intent 
and indicated his intention to appeal the decision on 30 Aug 07.  
Documentation submitted by the applicant does not reflect an 
appeal authority decision although the applicant states he 
submitted an appeal and it was subsequently denied.  

DPSOA states that a review of the applicant’s personnel record 
did not reveal an error or injustice to support the requested 
change.  

The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  According to the documentation 
provided by the applicant, the applicant’s nonverbal action and 
comments could constitute sexual harassment.  

He was administered three (3) LORs within 13 months for showing 
inappropriate videos (6 Jun 06 and 10 Jan 07) in the classroom 
and unprofessional behavior (17 Aug 07).  The applicant 
acknowledged he played the inappropriate videos, but denied he 
acted inappropriately.  

With regard to the applicant’s appeal, airmen must submit their 
appeals to the military personnel flights no later than ten (10) 
calendar days from the day they complete section V of the AF 
Form 418.  In this case, it is not evident from the record that 
the applicant ever submitted an appeal.  The partial memo dated 
approximately 30 days after the applicant was required to submit 
an appeal (9 Oct 07) would not have been processed by the MPF as 
the appeal was not received by the appeal date (approximately 
10 Sep 07).  

An additional non-recommendation from a commander is not 
necessary.  In this case, the commander notified the applicant 
of his non-recommendation for promotion to staff sergeant in 
accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, paragraph 
3.2.  AFPC/JA states that this additional notification did not 
prejudice the applicant in any manner; no issue of error or 
injustice warranting the requested relief was presented by the 
applicant; and actions taken were in accordance with applicable 
directives and the propriety of the actions by the commander is 
fully supported by the documented misconduct of the applicant.

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 8 Feb 08 for review and comment within 30 days.  As 
of this date, this office has not received a 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 agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their 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.

________________________________________________________________
_


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-
2007-03593 in Executive Session on 20 Mar 08, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 31 Oct 07.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSI, dated 26 Nov 07.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Dec 07.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 4 Feb 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 08.




                                   XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair