RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00783 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

The Letter of Reprimand, dated 4 Sep 07; the Article 15 imposed 
on 10 Sep 08; and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 
7 Jun 08 be voided and removed from his records. 

 

He be directly promoted to the grade of major as though selected 
by the Calendar Year 2007A (CY07A) Major Central Selection Board 
(CSB). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was wrongfully accused and punished by his command for 
actions that did not occur, and his career has been maliciously 
ruined by his commander. 

 

He was reprised against for filing an Inspector General (IG) 
complaint against his commander. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of the 
contested Article 15, LOR, OPR, his IG complaint, and other 
documents associated with the matter under review. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Information extracted from the military personnel data system 
(MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active 
duty in the grade of captain. 

 

On 4 Sep 07, the applicant received an LOR for conduct 
unbecoming an officer and falsifying official documents. On 
7 Sep 07, he submitted a written response to the LOR. After 
considering the applicant’s response, the commander decided to 
establish an Unfavorable Information File (UIF). 

 


On 10 Sep 08, he received nonjudicial punishment under 
Article 15 for wrongfully and dishonorably engaging in 
discussions of a sexual nature with a student; sharing a hotel 
with an enlisted female and student; and making inappropriate 
comments to his student. The punishment consisted of a 
forfeiture of $2501.00 pay per month for two months and a 
reprimand. He appealed the punishment but was denied. 

 

On 3 Nov 08, the applicant filed an IG complaint with the 325th 
Fighter Wing Inspector General (325 FW/IG) alleging reprisal by 
members of his supervision and command. On 5 Nov 08, his 
complaint was transferred to the Air Education and Training 
Command Inspector General Complaints Resolution Division 
(AETC/IGQ) for further review and analysis. On 28 Aug 09, 
AETC/IGQ forwarded their determinations to the Secretary of the 
Air Force, Office of the Inspector General, Complaints 
Resolution Directorate (SAF/IGQ) for an additional review. On 
24 Sep 09, SAF/IGQ completed their quality and legal reviews, 
made a determination that further investigation under 10 USC 
1034 was not warranted, and forwarded the applicant’s case file 
to the Department of Defense Inspector General Military Reprisal 
Investigations office (IG, DoD MRI) for final review and 
approval. On 20 Nov 09, IG, DoD MRI, concurred with the 
determination that further investigation under 10 USC was not 
warranted. Specifically, IG DoD MRI concurred that responsible 
management officials had sufficient reasons to remove him from 
instructor pilot duty; serve him with an LOR and establish a 
UIF; submit a Not Qualified for Promotion Letter and recommend 
Do Not Promote on his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF); 
initiate a Security Information File; suspend his aviation pay; 
administer Article 15 punishment; render a referral OPR; provide 
input on his Airmen Development Plan; and recommend Do Not 
Promote on his Nov 08 PRF. As a result, the matter was closed 
(Exhibit C). 

 

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 2002 
follows: 

 

 PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 

 

 17 Aug 02 Meets Standards 

 17 Aug 03 Meets Standards 

 17 Aug 04 Meets Standards 

 17 Aug 05 Meets Standards 

 2 Jun 06 Meets Standards 

 # 8 Jun 07 Meets Standards 

## 7 Jun 08 Does Not Meet Standards 

 

 # Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to the grade of major by the CY07A Major CSB. 

 

## Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to the grade of major by the CY08C Major CSB. 

 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits D through G. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial of the Article 15 request. They 
indicate the applicant has not provided any information of error 
or injustice to warrant action by the Board. The applicant had 
the opportunity to turn down the Article 15 twice, yet both 
times opted to have his commander decide whether he committed 
the offense and, if so, how much punishment would be 
appropriate. Once he accepted the Article 15, the applicant had 
opportunities to present any extenuating or mitigating evidence 
to his commander as part of the Article 15 proceedings. 
Considering the size of the applicant's written response, the 
commander clearly had all of the facts available to him as he 
made his decision. He was in the best position to carefully 
weigh all of the evidence, make informed findings of fact, and 
arrive at a suitable punishment. In AFLOA/JAJM’s view, the 
punishment imposed was appropriate and not unfairly harsh. 
There is no evidence that any of the commanders acted in an 
arbitrary or capricious manner. 

 

A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the LOR request. They indicate 
the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to 
support his claim the LOR was unwarranted or unjustified. 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the OPR request. They note 
the applicant received the LOR and a subsequent Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) for an unprofessional relationship; 
falsifying official documents, behavior unbecoming of an 
officer; and failure to obey a lawful order. The alleged 
conduct took place during the reporting period of the contested 
report. Therefore, AFPC/DPSIDEP finds no error or injustice in 
how the report is written. 

 

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

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the promotion request based on 
the AFLOA/JAJM, AFPC/DPSIM, and AFPC/DPSIDEP evaluations. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant 
on 26 Jun 09 for review and response within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (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 
alleges that he was punished for actions that did not occur. To 
substantiate this allegation he points to the same alleged 
deficiencies and contradictions in the evidence against him that 
he presented to his commander who imposed Article 15 punishment. 
His assertions are not convincing and do not in facts establish 
that he did not commit these offenses. As pointed out in the 
JAJM opinion, his commander was in a better position to weight 
this contested evidence and reach the determination that the 
offenses as charged were committed. He has not sustained his 
burden of proof to show his commander reaching this conclusion 
was an error or injustice. Accordingly, he has not established 
that he was punished for conduct that did not happen. 

 

4. The applicant has alleged Whistleblower retaliation in 
violation of 10 USC 1034. We note the Inspector General 
investigated these allegations and concluded a formal 
Whistleblower investigation was not warranted. Based upon our 
own independent review, we have determined the applicant has not 
established the adverse actions he cites were retaliation for 
his IG complaint. In reaching this determination, we note he 
has submitted no direct evidence of this reprisal motive, and 
the actions taken were a reasonable response to his misconduct. 
Moreover, the non-judicial punishment was imposed/reviewed by 
other commanders senior to his commander and reviewed by two 
legal offices. Although there is evidence that his commander 
may have thought poorly of this officer, it appears it was 
because of this officer’s conduct not his complaint to the 
Inspector General. In view of the above, and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis exists upon which to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

 


5. 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 he was not the victim of 
whistleblower retaliation and the evidence presented did not 
otherwise 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-2009-00783 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 09, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 09, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Inspector General (IG) Report (withdrawn). 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 30 Mar 09. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 17 Apr 09. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 4 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 16 Jun 09. 

 Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jun 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair