RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02081
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and the Unfavorable Information File
(UIF) be declared void and removed from his records.

2.  The bullets referencing a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) and  a  LOR
be removed from his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period of
13 February 2005 through 31 August  2005  and  the  three  performance
factors  marked  "Does  Not  Meet  Standards"  be  changed  to  "Meets
Standards".

3.  He be reinstated to the Air Force Institute of  Technology  (AFIT)
assignment he had or he receive  an  assignment  to  an  Active  Guard
position near Minneapolis to rejoin  his  family  and  get  a  masters
degree on his own time.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is basing his appeal on the following  reasons:   The  ratings  and
comments are inconsistent with prior and subsequent  evaluations,  the
comments  are  inconsistent  with  assigned  ratings,  a   personality
conflict existed, undue emphasis was placed on isolated incidents, and
possibly discrimination or unfair treatment.  He believes he  was  not
treated fairly in this unfortunate situation and  requests  the  Board
review his response to the LOA, which was originally filed  as  absent
without leave (AWOL) while he was supervising contractors packing  his
household goods (HHG) that were exposed to mold.   He  asks  also  for
review of his LOR for supposedly violating orders for  restriction  to
quarters for 72 hours because of a broken left toe.  He spoke  with  a
military physician who  stated  the  restriction  to  quarters  was  a
suggestion and his supervisor was the final approval  authority.   His
supervisor never confirmed the quarters  recommendation,  and  he  had
already cleared the base; therefore, he did not believe  the  quarters
recommendation was binding.  Legally, he was not on orders restricting
him to quarters.  His quarters consisted of a pup tent in which he was
living on base in August with no air conditioning.  If his  supervisor
had authorized restriction to quarters for more than 24 hours, then he
was required to make sure there was another adult in his  quarters  to
assist him.  When his supervisor was asked  when  he  learned  of  his
condition, the commander indicated he did not have to respond  to  the
question.  He has followed the chain-of-command and other  avenues  to
resolve these issues.  In addition, he does  not  want  to  officially
accuse anyone of violating  the  "Military  Whistleblowers  Protection
Act" but it sure seems like there was  retaliation  shortly  after  he
mentioned to the Inspector General (IG)  and  other  base  members  he
might submit the mold pictures to the media.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provided  a  cover  letter,
extracts from his personnel records, correspondence in response to his
LOA and LOR, and a compact disk with attachments.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular  Air
Force on 13 February 2000 and was progressively promoted to the  grade
of captain.

The applicant was scheduled to  obtain  an  AFIT  Master's  Degree  in
Medical Physics in August 2005.   On 8 April 2005, he received an  LOA
for failure to report to duty and for misuse  of  a  granted  academic
day.  On 9 August 2005, the applicant was issued an LOR for  violating
Article 92, Dereliction in the Performance of duties, for  failing  to
remain in his quarters as he was required to do.  On 12  August  2005,
the applicant acknowledged receipt of the LOR  and  provided  rebuttal
comments.  On 29 August 2005, the LOR was  processed  and  a  UIF  was
established  IAW  AFI  36-2907,  Unfavorable  Information  File  (UIF)
Program.  As a result of this action, his assignment to AFIT, per  Air
Force policy was cancelled.   On  1  September  2005,  he  received  a
referral OPR.  He filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 26-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports;  however,  it  was
denied because the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board  (ERAB)  found  no
procedural errors or injustices in the contested report.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSO recommends denial. DPSO states the use of LORs by commanders
and  supervisors   is   an   exercised   supervisory   authority   and
responsibility.  An individual has three duty  days  upon  receipt  to
submit rebuttal documents for consideration by  the  initiator.   LORs
are mandatory for file in the UIF for  commissioned  officers.   After
reviewing the applicant's request, DPSO concurs that  the  pattern  of
behavior cited in the LOR is consistent and concludes that  there  was
no error or injustices caused by the Air Force in this case.  The  LOR
was administered IAW AFI 36-2907 and the UIF established accordingly.

The complete DPSO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAMW recommends denial. DPAMW states reconsideration of the LOR,
referral OPR and UIF  are  beyond  the  approval  authority  of  their
office.  If the above  actions  are  removed  from  his  records,  the
applicant is eligible to reapply for an AFIT assignment dependant upon
available Air Staff funding, selection by  AFIT  selection  board  and
acceptance at an  approved  graduate  degree  program.   In  addition,
consideration of reassignment  close  to  Minnesota  may  be  possible
depending  on  Air  Force   Specialty   Code   (AFSC)   specific   job
availability, needs of the Air Force and meeting required  eligibility
criteria for reassignment per AFI 36-2110, Assignments.

The complete DPAMW evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. DPSIDEP states it is obvious that  the
applicant pulled paragraph titles from AFI 36-2401, attachment one  to
use as the basis for his request (see attached).  Unfortunately he did
not provide the evidence required by those paragraphs to  support  any
of these claims.  A good  majority  of  the  supporting  documentation
provided  contained  pictures  of  the   applicant's   base   quarters
emphasizing  a  mold  problem  he  was  having  with   his   quarters.
Additionally, he goes on to explain in detail the  circumstances  that
led to the LOA and LOR.  The evidence presented seems to focus on, and
is an attempt to justify,  his  actions  for  being  derelict  in  the
performance of his duties.  It does not prove that the LOA, LOR or the
contested report are inaccurate or unjust.  DPSIDEP has no doubt  that
the applicant had a mold problem with his quarters and understands  he
had no control over his injury.  However, his poor  judgment  is  what
put him in the situation, not the Air Force.  He chose to  live  in  a
tent instead of billeting, he chose  to  violate  the  "restricted  to
quarters" order, and he chose to depart without proper  authorization.
He is not  the  first  person  to  injure  themselves  just  before  a
permanent change of station (PCS) move.  He had other avenues he could
have taken and chose not  to  use  them.   DPSIDEP  contends  that  an
evaluation report is considered to represent the rating  chain's  best
judgment at the time it is rendered.   In order to remove the  mention
of the LOA and LOR from the contested report, the applicant must prove
that they do not, and should not have existed.  Unfortunately  he  did
in fact receive both the LOA and LOR,  therefore  the  report  is  not
inaccurate or unjust as written.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
November 2007 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
this office has received no response (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.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence  of
record, the Board is not persuaded that the  LOR  and  UIF  should  be
declared void and removed from his records.  The  Board  is  also  not
persuaded by the applicant's assertions that the comments contained in
his OPR were in error or contrary to the provisions of  the  governing
instruction or that the applicant was rated unfairly.  Therefore,  the
Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopts the  rationale  expressed
as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of  evidence  to  the
contrary, the Board finds 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 the Board's understanding of  the  issues  involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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-
2007-02081  in  Executive  Session  on  10  January  2008,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

           Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
           Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
           Ms. Lea Gallogly, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
02081 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 June 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPSO Letter, dated 10 August 2007.
    Exhibit D.  AFPC/DPAMW Letter, dated 19 September 2007.
    Exhibit E.  AFPC/DPSIDEP Letter, dated 1 November 2007.
    Exhibit F.  SAF/MRBR Letter, dated 9 November 2007.



            JAMES W. RUSSELL III
            Panel Chair