RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04023 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be immediately reinstated to duty as commander of the Air 
Force Reserve ____Logistics Readiness Squadron (LRS) without 
prejudice and without a documented break in service from 
8 February forward. As part of this request, he also requests 
the following: 

 

 a. Any records pertaining to his transfer to an “overage 
status” be deleted from all Air Force systems of records. 

 

 b. He be granted a transfer at his request to another 
suitable position within the Air Force Reserve. 

 

 c. He be given a proper transfer of command, including a 
change of command ceremony, for the benefit of his squadron 
members and the incoming replacement commander. 

 

 d. He receive a suitable “end of tour” award for 
meritorious service for presentation at the time of his transfer, 
commensurate with his rank, and appropriate for his more than 
three years of successful performance as a squadron commander. 

 

2. He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel (Lt Col) USAFR and, if selected, his promotion be 
backdated to coincide with the 13-17 June 2011 Line of the Air 
Force Reserve Lieutenant Colonel mandatory promotion board 
(VO511B). As part of this request, he requests the following: 

 

 a. The AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), 
submitted on him by his senior rater for the VO511B board be 
removed from his record and, if a new PRF is required, be 
accomplished by his previous senior rater. 

 

 b. His PRF reflect “C21R3” as his duty Air Force Specialty 
Code (DAFSC) and “Commander” as his duty title. 

 

 c. His AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (OPR), 
rendered for the period 30 October 2009 through 29 October 2010, 
be modified in block IV, line 6 and block V, line 5, as necessary 
to change or mask the intentionally-weakened “push lines.” 


 d. His Fitness Assessment (FA) score, dated 6 March 2011, 
be invalidated and deleted from the Air Force Fitness Management 
System (AFFMS) and any other applicable Air Force system of 
records it may be filed. 

 

 e. An AF Form 469, Duty Limiting Condition Report, and AF 
Form 422, Notification of Air Force Member’s Qualification 
Status, be created for the period of 6 March-5 June 2011 to 
document his medical status and injury during this period. 

 

2. He receive protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a 16-page statement with 19 Exhibits, the applicant presents 
the following major contentions: 

 

1. He was illegally and inappropriately relieved of command. 
The individual who relieved him is his commander and immediate 
supervisor when they are serving in a military capacity. This 
individual misrepresented their legal status, violated Air Force 
instructions, violated proper disciplinary procedure, violated 
accepted standards of both military officer and civilian 
professionalism and ethics, and possibly violated the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other laws and provisions of 
the US Code. His commander and immediate supervisor is employed 
full time by his assigned Air Wing as a GS-13 civilian Air 
Reserve Technician (ART) and is the senior ART for the Mission 
Support Group. The individual also holds a part-time military 
position in the Air Wing as an Air Force Reserve colonel and 
commander of the Mission Support Group. The applicant indicates 
he will differentiate in his submission when his commander was 
serving in a civilian capacity or in a military capacity. He 
presents the following points in support of his argument: 

 

 a. He was never relieved of command by notification from 
competent military authority in military status under Title 10, 
United States Code. 

 

 b. Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) Supplement to AFI 51-
202, paragraph 3.6, specifically prohibits a reservist from being 
involuntarily called to a duty status solely for purposes of 
initiating or completing non-judicial punishment actions, 
regardless of their military or civilian status. 

 

 c. Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 36-8001V1, paragraph 1.7, 
requires that an Air Reserve Technician like his supervisor and 
commander be “off duty or in an official leave or compensatory 
status from civil service … when performing military duty” 
Taking punitive administrative action or administering non-


judicial punishment to a military member is “military duty” and 
must be done while in military status. 

 

2. He was called and notified on 7 Feb 11 that his commander 
wanted him to come in to meet with him either later that day or 
the next and that he would be placed in military status on a 
Reserve Management Period (RMP). Because he did not know and his 
supervisor did not disclose his justification for ordering him 
into military status, he obeyed what he believed to be a lawful 
order and reported for duty at 0800 on 8 February 2010 [sic]. 
His supervisor and commander took disciplinary action against him 
with written administrative, or possibly non-judicial, punishment 
and relieved him of command and his military position forcing him 
into an overage position in another unit. To the best of his 
knowledge, his commander was not in an active military status on 
8 February 2011. The applicant makes the following contentions 
regarding the action taken against him: 

 

 a. In relieving him of command his commander while in 
civilian status represented himself in a military capacity. His 
commander used false written statements and allegations against 
him or events that occurred outside the limits of his authority, 
in violation of Article 134, and possibly 92 and 107 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

 

 b. The written administrative, or possibly non-judicial, 
punishment was handed to him in the form of a printed email, in 
violation of specific formatting requirements stipulated by 
either AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File Program, or AFI 
51-202, Non-judicial Punishment. It was read to him in the 
presence of another ART, 

 

 c. The improper and unprofessional format did not give him 
an opportunity to acknowledge the action or allegations against 
him by signature, nor was he advised of his right to formally 
respond and provide a rebuttal, record his intent to challenge 
the allegations, or request legal counsel. 

 

 d. His commander manufactured “causes” for his removal in 
order to pursue his openly stated goal of replacing him, a part-
time Traditional Reservist (TR), with a full time ART squadron 
commander. His removal coincided with the publication of a job 
advertisement on USA Jobs to fill the ART position in the 
Logistics Readiness Squadron. 

 

3. The Air Wing Commander’s refusal to provide proper relief in 
his situation, or even address the specific points of his defense 
is one example of a pattern of retribution. The Air Wing vice 
commander, serving temporarily at the time as commander, refused 
to engage in a point-by-point reexamination of the evidence he 
presented against his commander/supervisor. He was only advised 
that his allegations were not found to have merit. 


4. His senior rater failed to provide him a copy of the PRF 
approximately 30 days before the board. In fact, he did not 
receive a copy of the PRF until 75 days after the conclusion of 
13-17 June 2011 Line of the Air Force Reserve Lieutenant Colonel 
Mandatory Promotion Board. The PRF was poorly and 
unprofessionally written and rife with errors. According to the 
28 September 2011 post-board counseling he received, the 
completely blank last line in block IV was a primary reason for 
his non-selection for promotion. 

 

5. He was injured during his 6 March 2011 Fitness Assessment and 
reported his injury to the appropriate personnel in a timely 
manner. Proper procedures were not followed in the processing of 
his score. His injury, medical status, and duty status were 
never properly documented on AF Forms 469 and 422 for the period 
of 6 March -5 June 2011. 

 

6. The applicant asserts he is requesting protection under the 
Whistleblower Protection Act due to a pattern of active and 
passive-aggressive retaliation and retribution, as well as 
professional indifference toward his requests for redress after 
he reported what he reasonably believed evidenced a violation of 
a law, rule or regulation, gross mismanagement, gross waste of 
funds, and/or an abuse of authority to various levels of his 
chain of command. His group and wing leadership bullied and 
marginalized him, turning him from a valued member of the Air 
Wing “inner circle” into a pariah, ultimately attempting to 
disgrace him by manufacturing causes for relieving him of his 
squadron command, sabotaging his opportunity for promotion, 
broadcasting his failure to get promoted, and forcing him to 
transfer units. 

 

The applicant provides a detailed chronological sequence of 
actions and events he contends support his contention he is the 
victim of reprisal. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant presents 17-page 
statement with 19 Exhibits consisting of various documents from 
his personnel record, multiple memorandums for record, and other 
documents related to his allegations. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to information extracted from the Military Personnel 
Data System (MilPDS), the applicant currently serves in the Air 
Force Reserve in the grade of major (O-4). 

 


A search of available records did not reveal that the applicant 
had filed a complaint with the Inspector General (IG) related to 
the matter under review. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The Commander of the applicant’s assigned wing provided a 
response to the allegations leveled by the applicant, which the 
AFRC/JA approved for release to the Board. 

 

The Wing Commander recommends the application be denied, 
indicating the actions taken by the Wing leadership regarding the 
applicant were appropriate and correct. The Wing Commander 
states he has personal knowledge of many of the issues raised by 
the applicant. He also received input for his response from the 
applicant’s immediate commander/supervisor and the commander of 
the squadron to which the applicant was transferred. The Wing 
Commander provides the following information: 

 

 a. The applicant was appointed to the position of commander 
of the LRS on 6 Dec 2008 and remained in this position until he 
was transferred to the Aerial Port Squadron (APS) on 8 February 
2011. Both units are part of the same Mission Support Group 
(MSG). The applicant’s assignment to the APS was a temporary 
move to allow him to locate another position in the Air Force 
Reserves. 

 

 b. The Wing Commander indicates he had concerns about the 
applicant’s performance during the first year of his assignment. 
The Wing was scheduled for an Operational Readiness Inspection 
(ORI) in December 2009. The entire Wing was focused on preparing 
for the critical inspection; however, the applicant was not as 
engaged with his squadron as his other squadron commanders. 
During the ORI, held from 4-11 December 2009, the Wing deployed 
to the Combat Readiness Center to demonstrate its ability to 
operate in a remote site. On the second day of the deployment, a 
senior member of the inspection team informed him the applicant 
did not understand critical elements of his job, and that he was 
failing in his leadership role as the LRS commander. In the 
final ORI report, LRS leadership was rated as “Marginal.” The 
written “Findings” noted the failures of the LRS commander in 
several areas. It was clear from the report the applicant had 
significant deficiencies in his performance as the commander of 
the LRS. The Wing Commander indicates he personally counseled 
the applicant concerning his dismal performance in the ORI. 

 

 c. The commander/supervisor that is the primary subject of 
the applicant’s complaint was assigned as the MSG commander in 
November 2010. In his first month in the position, he met 
individually with each squadron commander in the MSG and 


discussed his expectations of them as leaders in the squadrons. 
He met with the applicant and expressed his expectations, which 
specifically included that he wanted the applicant and all 
members of his squadron to pass the Air Force fitness assessment. 

 

 d. The new MSG commander soon began to see problems with 
the applicant’s leadership of the LRS. He determined the 
applicant was not engaged with his Airmen in a way that 
commanders should be and that he was uninformed about many 
squadron issues and did not sufficiently involve himself in 
addressing problems in his unit. 

 

 e. The applicant displayed a lack of judgment in some of 
his decision making. The Wing Commander provides specific 
details of the applicant’s approval of a two-week annual tour in 
Hawaii of a member just before retiring and of the applicant’s 
selection of a member of his unit to fill a vacant position in 
his squadron, despite irregularities in the selection process. 

 

 f. According to the Wing Commander, the MSG Commander 
decided to remove the applicant from his position as commander 
based on the deficiencies in the applicant’s performance. The 
decision was entirely within the discretion of the MSG Commander 
and had the full support of the Wing Commander. The Commander 
indicates it was not in the best interest of the LRS or the Wing 
for the applicant to remain in his position of command. 

 

 g. The PRF prepared on the applicant considered his 
failures as a commander and accurately reflected what his 
potential for service in a higher grade was. Regarding the 
applicant’s allegation that his PRF had no input from the unit he 
was transferred to, the Wing Commander points out the applicant 
was only assigned to the new unit on a short-term basis after he 
was removed as commander of the LRS. The PRF was written based 
on inputs from the MSG Commander and the Wing Commander’s own 
observations. Regarding the applicant’s contention he did not 
receive a copy of the PRF prior to the convening of the promotion 
board, the Wing Commander notes that the unit responsible for 
sending out the PRFs indicate they did so, but cannot provide a 
date. Nevertheless, the Wing Commander points out the applicant 
was aware he was supposed to receive a copy of the PRF, but made 
no effort to notify anyone he had not received the PRF. 

 

 h. Regarding the applicant’s request to remove the results 
of his Fitness Assessment from the AFFMS, the Wing Commander 
notes the applicant did not notify the monitor that he had 
injured his back until after the assessment. The applicant 
reported his injury to the Wing clinic and then requested the APS 
commander invalidate his score. The APS commander also received 
an email from a doctor at the clinic recommending the score be 
invalidated. She requested guidance from the MSG commander and 
was advised to invalidate the score. However, upon notification 


of the fitness assessment monitor to invalidate the score for the 
sit-up requirement, the APS commander was advised that only the 
entire assessment could be invalidated, not just the sit-up 
requirement. Additionally, the APS commander was provided 
information of the applicant’s history regarding the fitness 
assessment. After considering the totality of the circumstances 
related to the applicant’s failure, it was decided not to 
invalidate the score. The Wing Commander points out there was no 
pressure on the APS commander and that she made the decision of 
how to handle the applicant’s fitness assessment score. 

 

The complete evaluation by the Wing Commander, with an extract of 
the ORI results for the LRS, is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFRC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s application. The 
applicant’s contention that his commander had no authority to 
remove him from command is irrelevant because the requirement to 
be in a military status only applies to punitive actions under 
the UCMJ (e.g. Article 15 and Court Martial actions), not to 
administrative actions like letters of reprimand (LOR), 
administrative discharges, or removals from command. He also 
claims he never received the PRF that was mailed to him, but 
failed to bring that to the attention of the unit until after the 
results of the promotion board were released. Finally, with 
respect to his FA test, a commander may invalidate a test when a 
member is injured but is not required to do so by the AFI. Under 
these circumstances, where he did not notify anyone of the injury 
until after the test was over, and noting his two previous FA 
failures, the commander had valid reasons to exercise her 
discretion to not invalidate the FA. 

 

The complete AFRC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

The new information from the Wing Commander is a fabrication and 
inconsistent with the facts. While the applicant indicates the 
Wing Commander did not take his application seriously enough to 
respond to every specific allegation, the applicant provides a 
point-by-point reply to each of the Wing Commander’s 
explanations. The Wing Commander’s assertion the applicant was 
not as engaged with his unit as other commanders ignores the fact 
that he attended numerous meetings in advance of the unit’s ORI 
that were not attended by other traditional (part-time) 
commanders. Because he was serving on active duty in support of 
another organization, he was able to dedicate several hours per 
day on average helping his squadron and wing prepare for the ORI, 
even though it technically violated an agreement between his unit 
and the other organization. As to the assertion that he was 
given feedback about these concerns, he was given no negative 


feedback during this time; in fact, he was given no meaningful 
feedback at all, even when solicited. Additionally, this new 
information is also inconsistent with the actions of both the 
Wing and MSG commanders to support his candidacy for the Air 
Reserve Technician (ART) (full-time) LRS commander position 
during the matter under review. This action would be highly 
inconsistent with the Wing Commander’s latest accusations. While 
the Wing Commander selectively cites a small section of the ORI 
Report as the basis of his current recommendation, he fails to 
indicate that his squadron received an overall “Satisfactory” 
score during the inspection and that he was personally 
responsible for 21 of 90 graded functions, which resulted in the 
Wing receiving an overall passing grade. Additionally, his post-
ORI performance reports contain laudatory comments related to his 
efforts during the ORI, which are inconsistent with the Wing 
Commander’s advisory opinion in the instant case. While the Wing 
Commander describes a portion of the feedback the applicant 
received from the new MSG commander, he was told that his 
decision to turn down the full-time ART position showed “poor 
judgment” after others had stuck their necks out to secure the 
position for him. He indicated this decision by the applicant 
showed poor judgment as a squadron commander and that he intended 
to convert his position into a full-time ART position. His MSG 
commander then manufactured causes for the applicant’s removal 
from his traditional (part-time) command position to pursue his 
openly-stated goal of replacing him with a full-time ART 
commander. His removal from his position coincided closely with 
the advertisement of the full-time position through USA Jobs. 

 

As for the remaining allegations which formed the basis of the 
action to relieve him of command (sending a member of his 
squadron to Hawaii for annual training shortly before her 
retirement and participating in racial discrimination by altering 
the conditions of a promotion selection process to deny a 
promotion to an African American member of his squadron), the 
applicant reiterates that these allegations are false and 
therefore undermine the propriety of the commander’s decision to 
relieve him of command. 

 

As for AFRC’s position that his commander’s status when he was 
relieved from command is irrelevant, AFRC and the command are 
trying to have it both ways without having to produce any hard 
evidence to support their position. While AFRC indicates the 
requirement for a commander to be in a military status only 
applies to Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions, 
(rather than administrative actions), his commander stepped over 
the line when he accused him of a court-martial offense (gross 
dereliction of duty), and manufactured false causes for his 
removal (e.g., criminal accusations amounting to racial bias and 
fraud, waste, and abuse). It is one thing for a group commander 
to respectfully tell a squadron commander that his time is up, 
administratively speaking, but completely another when such a 


commander, in civilian legal status, falsely accuses a squadron 
commander of crimes without the protection of due process, takes 
positive action (drafting inaccurate PRF) to destroy that 
commander’s career, and orders a traditional reservist away from 
their civilian employment into military status outside of a 
scheduled Unit Training Assembly (UTA) – something only the 
National Command Authority has the authority to do. 

 

While the Wing Commander correctly states that a group commander 
has the authority to remove a squadron commander within his or 
her group, they may not do so under false pretenses for the 
purpose of retribution and retaliation. 

As for his contention he did not timely receive his PRF for 
review, the Wing Commander blame shifts to the Mission Support 
Squadron, then to the applicant, when the responsibility is 
solely his to provide a copy of the PRF to the applicant at least 
30 days prior to the promotion board in accordance with the 
governing statute and Air Force instructions. 

 

As for his fitness assessment, the applicant simply asks the 
Board to weigh the evidence surrounding his request to have his 
Fitness Assessment invalidated. As he has already explained, the 
unit’s fitness assessment scoring and medical processes broke 
down and his chain of command took advantage of the situation by 
failing to intervene and ensure he received proper medical 
documents at the same time they were retaliating against him with 
an inaccurate PRF. 

 

In support of his response, the applicant provides an eight page 
expanded statement. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant alleges he has been the victim of an error or injustice 
(10 USC 1552) and that he has been the victim of reprisal and has 
not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (10 USC 1034). Among his many allegations, he 
contends that his command retaliated against him for his 
reporting of what he believed were violations of law, rule or 
regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; and/or an 
abuse of authority within various levels of his chain of command. 


He argues the command’s action to relieve him of his command, 
deliberately render him a faulty promotion recommendation form 
(PRF) and then deprive him of the opportunity for timely review, 
and refusal to invalidate his fitness assessment (FA) in the 
aftermath of an injury, constitutes a pattern of retaliation, 
which is inconsistent with his well documented superior duty 
performance and potential and the command’s previous efforts to 
recruit him for full-time employment as an Air Reserve Technician 
(ART). In response to his many allegations, his Wing Commander 
and AFRC/JA have rendered comprehensive evaluations, to which the 
applicant has provided a lengthy rebuttal. After a thorough 
review of the evidence before us, and noting the applicant has 
not availed himself of the Inspector General (IG) process, we do 
not find his uncorroborated assertions or the documentation 
provided, sufficient to establish that he was the victim of an 
error or an injustice as defined in 10 USC 1552, or that he was 
the victim of reprisal as defined in 10 USC 1034. Nevertheless, 
the Board finds the allegations made by the applicant troubling 
and believes that to render a fair and equitable consideration of 
this case, an investigation should be conducted by the Inspector 
General. We do not know why the applicant failed to file a 
complaint with the Inspector General, but under the authority 
granted to this Board on this issue, we find that an 
investigation appears warranted. Therefore, it is our 
determination that a final decision not be rendered on the 
applicant’s requests until such time as the Inspector General 
conducts an investigation at our request and the report of 
investigation (ROI) is provided to us for review. Upon receipt 
of the IG ROI, or if for some reason, the IG should determine an 
investigation cannot be conducted, we will reopen the applicant’s 
case and resume consideration of his requests. Therefore, it is 
our determination the applicant’s case be administratively 
closed, without prejudice, until appropriate action by the IG has 
concluded and this Board and the applicant, has been so advised. 

 

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 our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-04023 in Executive Session on 10 Apr 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, XXX AW/CC, dated 7 Feb 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 24 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Mar 12. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Mar 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair