RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05436

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His two Letters of Reprimand (LORs) for incidents which occurred while he was on temporary duty (TDY) to Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), Florida and his associated referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) be declared void and removed from his records. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  He was unjustly issued LORs by both a Numbered Air Force Commander (NAF/CC) at Tyndall AFB and the Operations Group Commander (OG/CC) at his home station for the same alleged incidents which occurred in 2009 while he was TDY to Tyndall AFB.  

2.  The Security Forces (SF) investigation into the incidents in question was improperly conducted because the SF investigating personnel did not properly swear-in or authenticate witnesses and others interviewed during the investigation.  His accuser’s statements are inconsistent and he has witness statements from two officers.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was stationed at MacDill AFB, FL and served in the grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) in the Air Force Reserve during the period of time in question.  

Based on the information the applicant provided, in 2009 he received an LOR from a NAF/CC at Tyndall AFB, a Major General.

On 18 Sep 10, the applicant received an LOR from his OG/CC for the following reasons associated with incidents which occurred while the applicant was TDY at Tyndall AFB, FL:
	1.  Having an inappropriate relationship with a woman who was not his wife.

	2.  Having a violent argument with the woman with whom he had the inappropriate relationship during which he threw a bottle at her, grabbed her and twisted her arm behind her back causing bruising, and tore her clothing during the altercation. 

	3.  Having a second violent argument with the same woman approximately a week later during which he confronted her in a men’s bathroom of a public establishment and threw her against a wall causing a witness to shout “leave the female alone, stop hurting her.” 

On 11 Oct 11, the applicant received a referral OPR covering the period 2 Sep 08 through 1 Sep 09 in which he was rated “Does Not Meet Standards,” which included the statement “Removed from duties as AMC Planner and placed on administrative hold for allegations of unbecoming conduct.”  

On 17 Nov 11, the applicant received a LOR from his OG/CC for failure to follow the correct procedures for operating a KC-135, lying to the other crewmembers of the aircraft about the incident, behaving deviously by not documenting the incident, and then not making himself available in person to the investigating official.  

On 30 Nov 11, the applicant received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) from his squadron commander (SQ/CC) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty for monthly Unit Training Assembly (UTA) in both Oct and Nov 11.  

On 11 Dec 11, the applicant received a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) from his SQ/CC for failing to go to his appointed place of duty for monthly Unit Training Assembly (UTA) in Dec 11.  

On 9 Jan 12, the applicant received an LOR from his SQ/CC for failing to go to his appointed place of duty for monthly Unit Training Assembly (UTA) in Jan 12.  

On 30 Mar 12, the applicant was placed on the Reserve Retired List in the retired grade of Lt Col.  

On 21 Dec 12, the AFRC Inspector General (AFRC/IG) notified the applicant that the complaint he filed against his wing leadership was closed because the matter was a personnel issue which had to be handled through alternate channels.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and E.    

________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, a performance evaluation that contains any of the following is a referral:  

	a.  When comments in any OPR, EPR, LOE or TR, regardless of the ratings if applicable, or the attachments to that evaluation, are derogatory in nature, imply or refer to behavior incompatible with, or not meeting minimum acceptable standards of personal or professional conduct, character, judgment or integrity, and/or refer to disciplinary action.

	b.  When an officer fails to meet standards in any one of the listed performance factors in Section III or Section IX of the OPR.  The overall evaluation will be a “Does Not Meet Standards” and the evaluation must be a referral. 

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The documents the applicant submitted from the Hurlburt Field Area Defense Counsel (ADC) and the Letter of Evaluation (LOE) are not signed.  Therefore, A1K is unable to determine if they were finalized documents.  In consultation with AFRC/JA, it was confirmed a member can receive two LORs for the same event.  Thus, based upon the documentation presented for review, recommend disapproval.  

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

AFRC/JA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error of injustice.  Before issuing the LOR, the OG/CC requested a copy of the LOR purportedly given to the applicant while performing duties at Tyndall AFB since there was no record of the LOR in the applicant’s personnel file.  The OG/CC never received a copy of said LOR and therefore documented the applicant’s misconduct with the LOR, dated 18 Sep 10.  IAW AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, commanders, supervisors, and other persons in authority can issue administrative counseling, admonitions, and reprimands.  However, there is no established standard of proof that a commander, supervisor, or person of authority must meet before he/she can issue a reprimand.  A full investigation into the incidents which formed the basis of the applicant’s 8 Sep 10 LOR was conducted by the appropriate SF Office of Investigation.  The evidence the applicant’s OG/CC reviewed and relied upon in making his decision to issue the 8 Sep 10 LOR is legally sufficient.  Concerning the applicant’s contention regarding the SF Report of Investigation (ROI), there are many incidents where witnesses only provide verbal statements.  This is a normal and acceptable method of obtaining witness statements.  The subject LOR is supported by legally sufficient evidence and, as such, the applicant’s request should be denied.   

A complete copy of the AFRC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He submits an expanded statement repeating the information he presented in his initial application; presenting a very detailed description of the aircraft mishap which served as the basis of his 17 Nov 11 LOR; explaining why he missed the UTAs which made up the bases of several of his administrative punishments; reiterating his contentions about the improper procedures followed by the SF investigators; and making reference to his IG Complaint filed against his wing leadership.  In addition, he highlights a lack of communications with his unit in the aftermath of his disciplinary actions concerning issues such as his undergoing an Officer Grade Determination (OGC) before his retirement (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.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinions; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief.

________________________________________________________________

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-2012-05436 in Executive Session on 19 Sep 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 12, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTS, dated 12 Apr 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 14 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 9 Jul 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jul 13.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 13, w/atchs.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair