RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04682

		COUNSEL:  

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Letters of Reprimand (LOR), dated 15 April 2009 and 
24 July 2009 be removed from his record.  

2.  His AF Form(s) 709, Promotion Recommendation, for the P0309C 
and P0310B Captain Promotion Boards be removed from his record.  

3.  He be given the opportunity to continue to serve in the Air 
Force.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  In a combined 25 page brief, the applicant, through counsel, 
makes the following contentions:  

	a.  He was discharged from the Air Force on 31 March 2011 
after thirteen years of service due to the fact that he was not 
promoted to the grade of Captain.  His failure to be promoted 
was a result of receiving two LORs as well as do not promote 
(DNP) recommendations on two Promotion Recommendation Forms 
(PRF) for the alleged offense of having an inappropriate 
relationship with another military member's wife in the spring 
of 2009 as well as violating two no contact orders (NCO) which 
were issued, as a result of the alleged inappropriate 
relationship, for the periods of 18 March 2009 to 29 May 2009 
and 8 June 2009 to 8 September 2009.  

	b.  His commander initiated a Command Directed Investigation 
(CDI) to determine whether he had violated Article 92, Uniform 
Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Failure to Obey Other Lawful 
Order, during the periods of 18 March 2009 to 29 May 2009 and 5 
June 2009 to 8 September 2009.  The CDI was conducted from 17 to 
28 August 2009.  Seven pieces of evidence were considered.  They 
are as follows:

		(1).  Clothing, shoes, toiletries, and computer images.

		(2).  A hand written note.

		(3).  The squadron recall roster, a USAA bank statement 
and travel management office (TMO) check.

		(4).  Witnessed, direct conversations.

		(5).  The applicant’s Facebook page.

		(6).  Written statements. 

		(7).  Cell phone statements.

The IO concluded that the allegation was unsubstantiated.  
Nevertheless, the commander, as the approving authority, issued 
a memorandum on 28 September 2009, in which he disapproved the 
finding of the CDI.  

	c.  He received written notification on 21 October 2010 that 
he was not selected for promotion for a second time and would be 
involuntarily separated.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates that his last 
day on active duty was 31 March 2011.  He served his country for 
over twelve years and, with the exception of two LORs issued in 
this case, he has never been in any kind of trouble before.  He 
served four years in the Marine Corps and attained the rank of 
Corporal before transferring to the Air Force and achieving the 
rank of Staff Sergeant prior to receiving his commission.  He 
became an Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) and received numerous 
awards and decorations such as a Distinguished Graduate during 
EWO training which demonstrates that his military record has 
been exemplary.  In short, his record indicates that he would 
not have committed these offenses.  

	d.  Since his discharge, he has had a very difficult time 
finding and maintaining employment despite the fact that he has 
applied for well over a hundred positions.  Due to the fact that 
he has over thirteen years of military service, he has attempted 
to obtain a position with the Federal Government.  However, on 
each occasion, the issues of why he was discharged and the LORs 
have either arisen in the interview process or during the 
security background investigation.  For example, he received an 
offer of employment with a federal agency, but the offer was 
rescinded.  Likewise, he has been in the process of being hired 
by several other federal agencies until these issues arose 
during his background investigation.  Recently, he was hired by 
a federal agency for an entry level position but was terminated 
after the security investigation revealed the LORs.  

2.  He seeks to have the LORs and PRFs removed from his record 
and to be made whole from their collateral consequences.  The 
grounds for this request are as follows:  

	a.  He did not commit the alleged offenses. There is no direct 
evidence that would prove that he violated the no contact 
orders.  

	b.  Harmful procedural errors were committed.  Information 
that was still under investigation was included in the first 
PRF; the second LOR was not acted upon within three days after 
the response was submitted; the cut-off date for senior raters 
to sign do not promote (DNP) memos had expired and a timely 
officer performance report (OPR) was not accomplished before the  
second PRF.  Additionally, once the CDI was completed, he was 
never notified either verbally or in writing of the results of 
the CDI which a commander is required to do.  

	c.  His commander abused his discretion.  The Privacy Act of 
1974 was violated when his commander shared information, 
concerning him, with the husband of the woman with whom he 
allegedly had an inappropriate relationship.  Additionally, 
although commanders have a vast amount of discretion with regard 
to completing a PRF, that discretion is not unlimited.  In this 
instance, the sole reason for the recommendation on the second 
PRF was the LOR that was given well over a year before and had 
already been included on the first PRF.  

	d.  New evidence has been discovered that was not previously 
considered.  The evidence used to show that he had violated the 
no contact order was altered.  He was never questioned about an 
alleged Facebook posting that was also being considered as 
evidence that he had violated the no contact order.  The 
commander who issued the LOR did not have the command authority 
to issue an LOR or place it in a UIF during the time period of 
24 Jul 09 to 7 Dec 09.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides his counsel’s 
brief with attachments.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

1.  According to copies of his DD Form 214s, and documents 
extracted from his Military Personnel Record (MPR) the applicant 
enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 18 April 2002 and was 
released on 6 July 2006 to accept a commission in the same 
branch of service.  The applicant was commissioned on 
7 July 2006 and released on 31 March 2011 with an honorable 
characterization of service and narrative reason of separation 
of “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion.”  

2.  On 4 November 2009, the applicant filed a grievance 
complaint with the AFSOC/IG.  The complaint alleged that he 
received a second letter of reprimand (LOR) and a do not promote 
performance recommendation form (DNP PRF) that were not properly 
accomplished.  

3.  By letter, on 10 November 2009, AFSOC/IG notified the 
applicant that they had completed an inquiry into his complaint.  
The inquiry included a complaint clarification interview 
conducted with the applicant, interviews with individuals who 
either had personal knowledge of the circumstances or were 
subject matter experts, and a review of available documentation.  
They determined that the information developed during the 
inquiry was insufficient to form a basis for further 
investigation.  

4.  The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 
are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices 
of the Air Force at Exhibits C through E.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFPC/DPSIMC recommends partial relief.  DPSIMC recommends 
denial of the applicant’s request to remove the LOR dated 
15 April 2009; however, they recommend removing the LOR dated 
24 July 2009, from his records since it was administered 
incorrectly, 

2.  DPSIMC states the applicant received an LOR dated 
15 April 2009 and acknowledged receipt on 15 April 2009.  On 
23 April 2009, the commander established an Unfavorable 
Information File (UIF) with the LOR dated 15 April 2009.  In 
addition, he received another LOR dated 24 July 2009, for 
violating a no contact order and acknowledged receipt on 
3 August 2009.  

3.  In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable 
Information File Program, paragraph 3.4, “LORs are mandatory for 
file in the UIF for officer personnel.”  Paragraph 3.4.1, 
states, “For officer personnel only:  If a person other than the 
unit commander issues an LOR, send it to the unit commander for 
acknowledgment and endorsement via AF IMT 1058 and 
establish/file in an UIF.  Include the member's written 
acknowledgment and any documents submitted by the member.” 
Additionally, paragraph 3.5.1.6, states, “The person who 
initiates the RIC, LOC, LOA, or LOR has 3 duty days to advise 
the individual of their final decision regarding any comments 
submitted by the individual.”  The commander administered the 
LOR dated 15 April 2009 and established the UIF appropriately; 
however, the LOR dated 24 July 2009 was not administered within 
3 duty days, per the AFI.  

The complete AFPC/DPSIMC evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

1.  AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant's request to 
void his Performance Recommendation Forms (PRF) from his 
permanent record.  DPSID states that the applicant has not 
provided compelling evidence to substantiate the contested PRFs 
were unjust or inaccurate as written.  

2.  The applicant contends that his PRF, rendered for the P0309C 
board, contained comments that he believes should not have been 
mentioned due to a CDI not being fully completed.  The applicant 
also contends that his subsequent PRF for the P031OB board 
contained the same bullet from the P0309C PRF that referenced 
the LOR dated 15 Apr 09, as well as lacked any other 
accomplishments.  The applicant further alleges that the basis 
for the two LORs itself was unjust, and due to this assertion, 
he believes the LORs mentioned should be removed, thereby 
invalidating the aforementioned comments on his PRFs; thus 
warranting removal of the PRFs as prepared.  

3.  The Senior Rater is the sole proprietor of the subject PRFs 
and ultimately bears the responsibility of selecting what to 
include in the PRFs, what to leave out, which portions of the 
officer's career to concentrate on, and which to have supported 
by the record in an effort to summarize performance factors from 
an officer's entire career.  The PRF is not the only document 
within the Officers Selection Record (OSR) to be reviewed when 
considering an officer for promotion to the next higher grade.  
In addition to the PRF, the OSR also includes a complete Officer 
Record of Performance, to include all OPRs and any earned 
decorations over an officer's entire career.  The 
accomplishments the applicant references in his claim were 
reported in various OPRs and earned decorations spanning his 
career.  The PRFs served as a tool to point the promotion board 
members to the documented record to review accomplishments and 
impacts regarding an officer's performance.  Accordingly, the 
PRFs were appropriately considered.  

4.  The applicant has not provided any substantiating 
documentation or evidence to prove the final “DNP” PRFs were 
rendered unfairly or unjustly.  Air Force policy is that an 
evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a 
matter of record.  Additionally, it is considered to represent 
the rating chain's best judgment at the time it is rendered.  To 
effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear 
from members of the rating chain or other credible officials 
that had firsthand knowledge of the situation, not only for 
support but, also for clarification and explanation.  The 
applicant has failed to provide any information or support from 
any credible officials or agencies on the contested PRFs.  It is 
therefore determined that these PRFs were accomplished in direct 
accordance with all applicable Air Force policies and 
procedures.  

5.  DPSID contends that once a report is accepted for file, only 
strong evidence to the contrary warrants correction or removal 
from an individual's record.  The burden of proof is on the 
applicant, however, the applicant has not substantiated that the 
contested PRFs were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators 
based on knowledge available at the time.  Based on lack of 
corroborating evidence and the presumed legitimacy of the Senior 
Rater's overall recommendation on the subject PRFs, they 
recommend that no removal be made to the contested PRFs as 
currently exists in the applicant’s record.  

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

1.  AFPC/JA recommends the application (except for removal of 
the second LOR) be denied.  

2.  JA states the applicant was issued the LOR dated 
15 April 2009, for admitting to having committed adultery.  He 
received a second LOR (from a subsequent commander) dated 
24 July 2009, for violating a no contact order to refrain from 
contacting the woman with whom he admitted to committing the 
adultery.  The applicant did not present any matters in response 
to the first LOR, but he submitted a letter in response to the 
second LOR, denying that he had violated the order.  In the PRF 
for his 0309C promotion board, the applicant’s senior rater 
recommended that he not be promoted this board based on both the 
adultery and the violation of the no contact order.  The 
applicant was not selected for promotion at that board.  In the 
PRF for the 0310B (above the promotion zone) selection board, 
the applicant’s senior rater recommended that he not be promoted 
based on the original LOR and the adultery.  The applicant again 
was not selected for promotion, and he was ultimately discharged 
from the Air Force.  

3.  The applicant first challenges the legal sufficiency of the 
second LOR alleging his violation of the no contact order.  In 
addition to attempting to rebut the individual pieces of 
evidence that supported the violation, counsel cited the results 
of a CDI that found the applicant did not violate the order.  
The commander, however, rejected the CDI finding and determined 
that the order was valid, and that applicant had violated it.  
JA opines that the commander did not abuse his discretion in 
reaching that decision and the decision is supported by a 
preponderance of evidence.  The applicant also attacks the 
validity of this LOR on the ground that the commander who issued 
it (and filed it in the UIF) was not a legitimate commander; 
i.e., he was never properly placed in command of the unit.  
Counsel bases this conclusion on the fact that the applicant’s 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request did not result in his 
receiving a copy of a G-series order showing the officer's 
status as commander.  JA states, in their view, the fact that 
the applicant may not have received an order reflecting the 
command status is not sufficient to overcome the strong 
presumption that the commander in question was indeed performing 
properly in that position.  “Generally, there exists a strong 
presumption that administrators of the military, like other 
government officials, discharge their duties lawfully and in 
good faith.”  This presumption can only be rebutted by cogent 
and clearly convincing evidence to the contrary.  The fact that 
the applicant did not receive an order does not mean that such 
an order does not exist.  More importantly, AFI 51-604, 
Appointment to and Assumption of Command, does not require 
publication of a G-series order.  

4.  The administrative matters concerning the second LOR and PRF 
have been satisfactorily addressed in the other advisories.  
Specifically HQ AFPC/DPSIMC recommends that the second LOR be 
removed from the record due to an administrative error.  JA has 
no objection to that.  Whether or not the LOR itself is removed 
from the record, the misconduct contained therein (violation of 
the order) remained a proper basis for consideration by the 
senior rater in preparing the first PRF.  

5.  The applicant also challenges the first LOR on the ground 
that the only evidence to support the offense was his response 
of “Yes” when asked if he had committed adultery as charged. 
Contrary to the applicant's counsel's assertion, the applicant’s 
“Article 31 rights” did not attach to this action.  Such rights 
would only become relevant in a criminal prosecution; they are 
irrelevant to this situation or any LOR proceedings.  Moreover, 
as noted, in his 8 June 2010 response to the PRF, the applicant 
fully acknowledged his having committed adultery.  Similarly, 
his argument that the Privacy Act was violated is incorrect, as 
well as totally irrelevant to the ultimate validity of the LORs, 
PRFs, and promotion nonselections.  

6.  Regarding counsel's argument that under the factors listed 
in AFI 36-2406, paragraph 1.3.1. (now paragraph 1.8.1.3.) 
(factors to be considered in recording adverse information), the 
adultery should not have been mentioned in the PRF, this 
provision states that those factors should all be considered by 
the senior rater.  The applicant's counsel has offered no 
evidence that the senior rater did not consider these factors; 
he offers only an opinion that the factors weighed against 
inclusion of the adultery offense.  They strongly disagree.  
Consistent with those factors, the evidence of record fully 
supports the senior rater's decision.  

7.  Counsel’s argument that the LOR should not have been given 
(and therefore not included in either PRF) because an LOR is 
designed to be a rehabilitative tool (AFI 36-2907, paragraph 
3.1), “and should not end a career,” is nothing more than his 
opinion; he has offered no evidence in support thereof.  Counsel 
left out of his discussion paragraph 3.4, of AFI 36-2907, which 
states: “Reprimand is more severe than a counseling or 
admonition and indicates a stronger degree of ·official censure.  
LORs are mandatory for file in the UIF for officer personnel.”  
In short, issuance of the LOR in question under these 
circumstances constituted a proper exercise of the commander's 
discretion.  

8.  Counsel's final contention that new evidence was discovered 
that was not previously considered is without merit and 
irrelevant.  Such evidence was not material to the matters at 
issue and was certainly not determinative in rebutting on the 
merits the validity of any of the actions taken with respect to 
the applicant.  

9.  For the reasons stated above, it is their opinion that the 
applicant has failed to establish any prejudicial error or 
injustice (removal from the record of the second LOR having had 
no effect on the legality of the PRFs, the promotion 
nonselections, or the applicant's discharge), and they recommend 
the application (except for removal of the second LOR) be 
denied.  

The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  In their response the applicant and counsel respond to 
specific points of the Air Force evaluations that are at issue:  

	a.  One of the applicant’s primary contentions is the fact that 
a matter which was under investigation and had not been proven 
was included on his PRF.  Specifically, that the applicant 
received an LOR for violating a no contact order.  This is the 
same LOR that AFPC/DPSIMC now agrees should be removed from his 
record.  On 4 Aug 09, the day after the LOR was administered, 
the applicant was issued a PRF with a “Do Not Promote” 
recommendation.  The PRF justifies the “Do Not Promote” 
recommendation by referencing the alleged violation of the no 
contact order.  At that time, the response to the LOR was not 
even due yet, and the allegation certainly had not been proven.  

	b.  The response letter from AFPC/DPSID asserted that because 
the PRF could have been corrected until 29 Sep 09, the commander 
could have amended the PRF, if he wanted to, once the CDI was 
completed.  However, this argument ignores the fact that the 
applicant was not afforded an adequate opportunity to respond to 
the PRF because he did not have the results of the CDI when his 
response was due.  Although the IO’s report was completed on 
28 Aug 09, the CDI was not actually completed until 28 Sept 09, 
when the commander signed a memorandum disapproving the IO’s 
finding.  This is significant because the applicant's response 
to the PRF was due on 31 Aug 09, and he was never provided the 
results at that point in time.  In fact, he did not receive the 
CDI until he submitted a FOIA request 18 months later.  Thus, he 
was not able to reference any of the issues in the CDI including 
the finding of the IO that the allegation was unsubstantiated in 
a response to the Promotion Board.  Instead, the commander 
waited over a month until the day prior to the close out of the 
PRF before he finalized the CDI.  

	c.  Next, the assertion from AFPC/DPSID that the commander 
could have amended the PRF once he received the IO's report is 
not a reasonable position.  Although it would have been 
technically possible for him to do so, it is clear from the 
record that this never would have occurred.  The commander 
included the information in the PRF before the LOR response was 
even due and also before, the investigation was completed.  Once 
the report found the allegation was unsubstantiated, the 
commander simply disapproved the finding.  Thus, it is clear 
that the PRF was not going to be amended regardless of what the 
finding of the CDI was, and regardless of whether there was an 
adequate opportunity to respond.  The evidence the commander 
found most supportive of his disapproval of the CDI finding was 
the applicant’s statement regarding a pre-paid cellphone that he 
had prior to the no contact orders.  The only reason the 
commander knew about the cell phone was the applicant’s honesty 
during the IO questioning.  The commander had no additional 
evidence and ignored a letter that provided exculpatory 
information.  The IO was in a better position with firsthand 
knowledge of the individuals interviewed to have an objective 
conclusion than the commander did over a month later when the 
disapproval was finally written.  

	d.  The advisory opinion from AFPC/DPSID failed to address a 
significant issue that is part of the applicant’s appeal.  The 
guidance for the Calendar Year (CY) 2010 Quarterly Captain 
Selection Process included a Personnel Services Delivery Message 
(PDSM) that was not followed.  Specifically, PDSM 09-51, dated 
3 Sept 2009, required that members who were not selected for 
promotion during the previous selection process for the same 
grade receive a “Directed By Headquarters” OPR with a close-out 
date of 31 Jan 10.  The purpose of this requirement was to 
enable the Promotion Board to evaluate the member's recent 
performance.  However, the applicant’s last OPR was a Command 
Directed OPR closed out on 10 Oct 09.  Because an OPR was never 
accomplished, the Promotion Board did not receive any current 
information regarding the applicant’s performance.  In October 
2009, the applicant was assigned as the Standards and Evaluation 
Liaison Officer for his squadron and excelled at his new 
position.  He replaced a Captain that had been in the position 
for almost two years, and his performance was instrumental in 
maintaining the squadron's operations and training missions 
during a manning shortfall.  His performance in this new 
position should have been considered by the board, but was not 
because the “Directed By Headquarters” OPR with a close-out date 
of 31 Jan 10, was not accomplished.  

	e.  First Lieutenant (1Lt) N, the former husband of the woman 
with whom the applicant allegedly had an inappropriate 
relationship, has provided a letter which is worthy of careful 
consideration.  He confirms that he and his wife were separated 
in the spring of 2009.  1Lt N states that his chain of command 
informed him in April 2009 that they suspected the applicant was 
having an inappropriate relationship with his estranged wife.  
Thereafter, the vice commander at that point in time, 
specifically requested that he find proof that the applicant 
violated the no contact order.  1Lt N then flew from Texas to 
Florida in May 2009 at the vice commander’s request and entered 
his wife's home without her knowledge for the purpose of trying 
to find any such evidence.  1Lt N submitted his findings, which 
primarily were property that was believed to belong to the 
applicant, to the commander who found that there was not any 
credible evidence that the no contact order had been violated.  
The vice commander assumed command of the squadron at the end of 
May and reconsidered the evidence.  Perhaps most importantly, 
1Lt N states that he never actually heard the applicant in the 
background as previously stated, and that the only contact he 
was aware of was when the no contact order was not in effect.  

	f.  Major (Maj) B also wrote a letter of support.  Maj B had 
regular contact with the applicant and would have had a better 
perspective on his promotion potential.  In the letter, Maj B 
states that the leadership in the squadron purposely removed the 
applicant from his primary flight responsibilities and assigned 
administrative duties until September 2010 which would have been 
well over a year after the initial LOR was given.  This 
obviously was a much longer period of time than was necessary 
and had an impact on his performance reports.  Maj B also states 
that the applicant's performance was always above standards.  

2.  Based upon the reasons submitted in the combined brief and 
the rebuttal letter, they respectfully request that these 
matters be removed from the applicant’s record and that he be 
made whole from their collateral consequences and restored to 
active duty in the grade of Captain.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.  


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 concerning 
the applicant’s requests to remove the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) 
dated 15 April 2009, and Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF), 
for the P0309C and P0310B Captain Promotion Boards from his 
record.  We took careful notice of the applicant's complete 
submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not 
find the evidence provided sufficient to override the rationale 
provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility.  
Thus, we agree with the opinions and the recommendations of the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 
compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the 
relief sought in this application.  

4.  Notwithstanding our determination above, sufficient relevant 
evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 
error or injustice that warrants partial relief.  With regard to 
the applicant’s request that the LOR dated 24 July 2009, be 
removed from his record, we note AFPC/DPSIMC’s recommendation to 
remove the 24 July 2009 due to procedural error.  We agree with 
their recommendation.  Additionally, we believe his PRF for the 
P0309C Captain promotion board should be corrected to remove any 
reference to the “no contact order.”  Based on the fact that the 
investigation found this allegation to be unsubstantiated, in 
the interest of equity and justice, we believe this statement 
should be stricken from his P0309C PRF.  Accordingly, we 
recommend his records be corrected as indicated below.  

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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________



THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:  

	a.  The Letter of Reprimand dated 24 July 2009, be declared 
void and removed from his records.  

	b.  The AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), 
prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2009C (P0309C) 
Captain Central Selection Board (CSB), be corrected in item IV 
to remove the statement “ (Applicant) repeatedly violated an 
order of no contact with a married woman with whom he previously 
admitted to having a sexual relationship.”.

	c.  His corrected record be considered for promotion to the 
grade of captain (0-3) by Special Selection Boards (SSB) for the 
Calendar Year (CY) 2009C (P0309C) and 2010B (P0310B) Captain 
CSB.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 1 August 2013, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-04682:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 2012, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIMC, dated 2 Feb 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 5 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 22 Apr 2013.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 12 Jun 2013.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 30 May 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  IG Complaint Analysis dated 6 Nov 2009
                (withdrawn).




                                   
                                   Panel Chair