RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03237
INDEX CODE: 126.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 29 Jul 04 be removed from his
records.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Inspector General (IG) determined the LOR was unjust. Because of
the LOR, he was never promoted.
In support of his appeal the applicant provided a copy of the IG
findings.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard (ANG) as
a staff sergeant.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
JFHQ-TN-MPMO recommends the requested relief be denied. JFHQ-TN-MPMO
states AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF), is not
applicable to the ANG. The Tennessee ANG does not have a state
regulation to authorize units to maintain a UIF. The Military
Personnel Flight does not have an LOR on file in the applicant’s Unit
Personnel Record.
He was voluntarily demoted from master sergeant to staff sergeant
effective 30 Apr 99. He was crossed trained for force management
reasons into another Air Force Specialty Code to remain in the ANG.
He is currently assigned to a staff sergeant position. He is not
eligible for promotion at this time based on current assignment and
qualification training, not because of an LOR in his record.
The complete JFHQ-TN-MPMO evaluation is at Exhibit B.
NGB/A1PS concurs with the Tennessee ANG advisory and recommends the
requested relief be denied. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 11
Jan 08 for review and response within 30 days. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an injustice to warrant some relief. Applicant
requests the LOR issued on 24 Jul 04 be removed from his records. In
support of his appeal he provided an IG investigative report in which
three of his five allegations of inappropriate actions against him,
which led to the issuance of the LOR, were found substantiated.
Accordingly, it is our opinion the applicant has established
reasonable doubt as to fairness and appropriateness of the LOR. We
believe the benefit of such doubt should be resolved in his favor. We
note that the Air Force office of primary responsibility has indicated
that regulations do not exist which authorize ANG units to maintain
LORs. However, in order to ensure its non-existence, we recommend
action be taken to declare the LOR void and expunged from his records.
4. While he makes no specific request for corrective action regarding
his contention that because of the LOR he was never promoted, it
appears the office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed
this allegation and their comments have not been refuted by the
applicant. Therefore, we find no error or injustice with respect to
that portion of his request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Letter of Reprimand
issued on 24 July 2004, be declared void and removed from his records.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-03237 in Executive Session on 27 Mar 08, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-03237 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Sep 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, JFHQ-TN-MPMO, dated 7 Nov 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, 18 Dec 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 08.
GREGORY A. PARKER
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2007-03237
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 , be corrected to show the Letter of Reprimand
issued on 24 July 2004, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed
from his records.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00685
On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicants separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, the authority to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01522
The applicant did not provide any documentation to show the performance report and developmental counseling were tainted. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates that all of the contested actions were tainted in reprisal for his protected communications. In this respect, we note the DOD/IG report, dated 16 Feb 12, indicates the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-00608
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. The Letter of Reprimand, dated 23 November 2004,...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03715
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03715 INDEX CODE: 100.06, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive a reenlistment (RE) code that would enable her to reenlist in the Air Force or at least, in the Air National Guard (ANG) and that the following be removed from her record: 1. While she contends she received...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03421
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and copies of his contested OPR, statements from his accuser, and letters of support from his rating chain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his OPR closing 30 October 1997. DPSIDEP states the contested report contains accurate information that was known to the evaluators at the time the report was written.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02624
Her NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service, or DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect the active service she performed during her enlistment with the Air National Guard (ANG). On 6 Jan 12, the Air Force Office of primary responsibility determined the applicant should have been awarded the AFSM and corrected her records administratively. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912
In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03923
For over 4 years he could not be promoted to the grade of SMSgt by any military service with a ‘2’ EPR in his records along with a denial of reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03217
He testified against his wing commander in an Inspector General (IG) investigation and believes he was reprised against when his commander demoted him for having an unprofessional relationship. The original non-judicial punishment (NJP) notification served by the wing commander violated his due process rights when he was pulled back and re-served the NJP based on information directly relating to the Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI). On 8 Oct 09, the NY TAG denied the AGR Removal for...