RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-00735
            INDEX CODES:  111.02, 126.03
                         131.09

            COUNSEL:  GARY R. MYERS

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 4 Oct 04, 23 Feb 05, and  18 Jul
05, be declared void and removed from her records.

Her Referral Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 27 Mar 05  and
15 Aug 05 be declared void and removed from her records.

Her corrected record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection  Board  (SSB),  and  she  be
continued on active duty until she is eligible for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The  4  Oct  04  LOR  unfairly  characterized  her  conduct,  and  was
unreasonably harsh.

The 23 Feb 05 LOR was unnecessary, as she previously had been verbally
counseled on the incident in question.  It was  also  untimely  as  it
occurred four and a half months after the alleged misconduct.

The 27 Mar 05 referral OPR made multiple vague and ambiguous  comments
that were difficult, if not impossible, for her to  rebut  because  of
their inherent ambiguity.

The 18 Jul 05 LOR failed to allege any misconduct.

The 15 Aug 05 OPR was based on unreliable information, in violation of
the governing instruction, and her alleged  conduct  should  not  have
been recorded in the OPR.

In support of the appeal, the applicant provides  a  counsel’s  brief,
copies of the contested OPRs and LORs, and other documents  associated
with the matter under review.


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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s available military personnel records indicate that she was
appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 13 Jan  88
and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 15  Mar  88  in
the grade of first lieutenant.  She was released from active duty on 1
Jun 98 and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.  She was promoted  to
the Reserve grade of major on 1 Oct 01.

On 4 Jul 02, the applicant was voluntarily ordered to extended  active
duty.  She separated from active duty on 2 Apr 08 under the provisions
of AFI 36-3207 (Non-selection, Permanent Promotion).  She was credited
with 16 years and 13 days of active service.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
the applicant is currently assigned to the Air Force  Reserve  in  the
grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 Oct  01.   She  was  credited
with 19 years, 4 months, and 19 days of satisfactory federal service.

The remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate  offices  of  the
Air Force.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  2003
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       3 Jul 03  Meets Standards
 #     3 Jul 04  Meets Standards
 *    27 Mar 05                 Does Not Meet Standards (Referral)
 *    15 Aug 05                 Does Not Meet Standards (Referral)
##    15 Jun 06  Meets Standards
      15 Jun 07  Meets Standards
      12 Dec 07  Meets Standards

* Contested Reports.

 # Top Report at the time  she  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the  Calendar  Year
2005A (CY05A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.

## Top Report at the time  she  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the (CY07A) Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPS1 recommends denial of the applicant’s requests that the  LORs
be voided from her records, indicating the LORs were administered  and
the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established  in  accordance
with the governing instruction.  According to AFPC/DPS1,  the  use  of
the LOR by commanders and supervisors is an  exercise  of  supervisory
authority and responsibility.  An individual has three duty days  upon
receipt of the LOR to submit rebuttal documents for  consideration  by
the initiator.  LORs are mandatory for file in a UIF for  commissioned
officers.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s  requests  that  the
contested OPRs be voided and removed from her records, indicating they
are not convinced the reports are inaccurate or unjust.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOO recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request  for  SSB
consideration, indicating their recommendation is based  on  AFPC/DPS1
and  AFPC/DPSIDEP  recommendations  to  deny  voiding  the  LORs   and
contested OPRs.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/JA recommends denial of the appeal, indicating they  concur  with
all the previous advisories.  In their  view,  all  of  the  arguments
offered by the applicant’s  attorney  boil  down  to  his  belief  the
actions taken  by  her  command  in  response  to  her  behavior  were
excessive and unsupported.  They disagree.  The imposition of the LORs
and contested OPRs was clearly  within  the  commander’s  and  rater’s
discretion, and no evidence has been offered that  they  abused  their
discretion or acted arbitrarily.

A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel reviewed the  advisory  opinions  and  furnished  a  response,
indicating  the  applicant  has  provided  ample  evidence  that   her
commanders repeatedly abused their discretion in  awarding  the  LORs.
Regarding the  OPR  closing  27  Mar  05,  he  believes  the  advisory
addressing this issue missed the point  of  the  applicant’s  argument
that she could not respond to the report  because  it  was  vague  and
ambiguous.  While it was prohibitively vague,  the  applicant’s  other
complaint was that the OPR was  not  timely,  which  he  believes  was
significantly prejudicial.  The injustice in this case was significant
and the Board should grant the requested relief.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  her   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).   No  evidence  has  been  presented
which has shown to our satisfaction that the  information  used  as  a
basis for the LORs was erroneous, there was an abuse of  discretionary
authority, or that the contested reports were inaccurate depictions of
her performance at the time they were  rendered.   Therefore,  in  the
absence of sufficient evidence to the  contrary,  we  agree  with  the
recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our decision the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  her  burden  of
establishing that she has suffered either an error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2008-00735 in Executive Session on 4 Dec 08, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Michele M. Rachie, Member
      Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Feb 08, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSI, dated 14 May 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 18 Jun 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 25 Jul 08.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 7 Aug 08.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Aug 08.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, counsel, dated 22 Sep 08.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair