RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00989
                                 COUNSEL:   
	 			HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and any reference to the LOR  
be declared void and removed from his records.   

2. His referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 
of 1 Jul 2007 to 30 Jun 2008 be declared void and removed or 
redacted to eliminate any reference to the LOR.    

3. His Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed.  

4. He be transferred out of the Air Force Office of Special 
Investigations (AFOSI) and his Primary Air Force Specialty Code 
(PAFSC) be changed to 95A0, Non-extended Active Duty Air Force 
Reserve Component (AFRC) or Air National Guard (ANG) USAF 
Liaison Officer or Civil Air Patrol (CAP) Liaison Officer, and 
he be assigned where he can use his skills to the benefit of 
CAP. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had a personality conflict with his supervisor who ridiculed 
him openly, denied him perks offered to other agents and failed 
to provide him with the required evaluations to be removed from 
his probationary status as an AFOSI agent.  

At no time did he misuse his position as an AFOSI agent or make 
false statements to base authorities.  

He contacted the special agent in charge of counterintelligence 
at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB), AK, for the RED FLAG exercise, 
scheduled for 9 through 12 Apr 2008, and offered his assistance.  
She responded that his help would be appreciated since Red Flag 
was a busy time.  

He did not indicate that he was on Temporary Duty (TDY) orders 
when making lodging reservations for himself and his two 
friends.  

The Eielson AFB gate guard advised there was a 100 percent 
identification check in-place.  He informed him that he was on-
base for official business, provided his AFOSI identification 
credentials and advised that by policy OSI credentials were 
sufficient to vouch for himself and his guests.   They were 
detained while the guard supervisor contacted the local AFOSI to 
verify whether OSI credentials were sufficient to bring 
civilians on base.  He attempted to clarify that he was not 
using his credentials to sponsor his guests but was only 
questioning the gate guard’s understanding of the policy.  

The billeting receptionist viewed the reservation which was 
listed as a TDY and requested a copy of his orders.  He replied 
that he did not need orders as he thought his reservations were 
space available.  He presented his OSI credentials and she 
indicated they had three space available rooms.  

Due to weather the next day’s exercise events were cancelled.   
One of his guests was invited by another military pilot to view 
the base paint barn to observe new aircraft decals and although 
this access was pre-planned and authorized, he  contacted the 
Public Affairs Office (PAO) as a courtesy.  He gave the PAO 
officer his card but did not discuss gaining additional access 
to the flight line and he did not use his rank and credentials 
to coerce or influence her as she stated to the investigator.  

The vice wing commander was notified that he was hosting media 
personnel on base and that one of his guests had wandered away 
from his media escort.  The vice wing commander requested a 
meeting with him and he received a call from his region 
commander telling him to stop whatever he was doing.  During the 
meeting, the vice wing commander seemed more concerned with them 
staying on-base when billeting was in short supply.  He 
apologized and advised that they were staying in billeting on a 
space available basis.  The commander’s comment was “no harm, no 
foul” and he allowed them to continue staying in billeting until 
their departure the next day.  Later, he was accused of lying to 
the vice wing commander about what he was doing at Eielson.  

On 21 Apr 2008, AFOSI initiated an investigation alleging that 
he inappropriately used his OSI credentials to provide access to 
two civilians, falsified official orders to obtain billeting for 
himself and his two guests and provided false statements to base 
authorities about his activities.  

The detachment commander who initiated the investigation was his 
previous supervisor who he had a personality conflict with.  

Three months after the completion of the investigation, he 
received an LOR and was notified of the intent to recommend his 
decertification as an AFOSI agent.  He submitted a response to 
the LOR and his Area Defense Counsel (ADC) prepared a memorandum 
in rebuttal pointing out numerous investigative irregularities 
and the general lack of substantive evidence tying him to any 
offense. 

He received a referral OPR ending 30 Jun 2008 for not meeting 
standards, misuse of his authority as an AFOSI special agent, 
required improvement in maintaining integrity and professional 
standards. The punishment he received was unduly harsh and 
unjust.

On 15 Jun 2009, he submitted a complaint to the AFOSI Commander 
In Accordance With (IAW) AFI 51-904, Complaints of Wrongs Under 
Article 138, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), asking 
to have the LOR, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and OPR 
removed.  The request was denied.   

On 22 Feb 2010, he submitted a complaint for redress under 
Article 138, UCMJ, to the Air Force District of Washington 
(AFDW) Commander stating that AFOSI’s decisions were based on a 
defective investigation that resulted in irrefutable 
determination of his guilt.  Although the AFOSI Commander 
removed him from duty with OSI, his AFSC is still 71S3, AFOSI 
Agent, and he remains under AFOSI command and control.  As a 
result, he has been unable to meet the bare minimum of points 
needed as an Individual Mobilized Augmentee (IMA). He has not 
accrued any active duty time since 2-4 May 2008.

On 27 May 2010, USAF/JAA, by authority of the Secretary of the 
Air Force, denied his request for redress under Article      
138, UCMJ.  The legal review did not include any information on 
the validity of the action, except to say that the AFDW 
Commander’s action was appropriate, which essentially is no 
action.  

He has been unable to secure a paid billet and unable to provide 
any useful service to the Air Force.  He has been diligently 
trying to obtain a position and was notified in Dec 2011 that he 
was selected for a position in the Pacific Command to only have 
the offer rescinded a month later without explanation.  AFOSI 
has effectively ended his career without notification, 
opportunity to respond, separation board review or any 
regulatory requirements for due process.  

He never once thought about providing special favors but merely 
offered what any Air Force member could offer a civilian guest.  
He also saw it as an opportunity to fill a square in his 
training.  As with other previous inactive duties, he provided 
his own transportation and lodging.  Upon completion, he would 
submit to receive credit for work done.  

He knew that based on the false conclusion recorded as fact that 
his career was over.  He was counseled to submit to the Board as 
no one would take him with a referral OPR.   
 
The effect of the OPR is beyond the intent of the actions taken 
against him and beyond the intent of the disciplinary process 
outlined by AFI.  The most important factor is the truth which 
is not represented by the ROI or the OPR.  He accepts the 
consequences of his actions and offers that he could have 
handled the events in a different manner.  However, despite his 
missteps and communication failures, at no time did he misuse 
his position as an AFOSI agent for any reason, nor did he 
misrepresent the facts to anyone.  His integrity is intact.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a brief from 
his civilian counsel, a personal statement, copies of e-mail 
communique, ROI, letters to AFOSI and AFDW commanders, LOR, 
Notification of Decertification letter, referral OPR, USAF/JAA 
letter and letters of support.    

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently a reserve officer in a non-
participating status.

The ROI summary, dated 10 Jul 2008, shows the applicant was 
investigated for inappropriate use of OSI credentials, 
falsifying orders and making false official statements to base 
authorities during the applicant’s visit to Eielson AFB, AK, 
from 9 through 12 Apr 2008.  

In a memorandum, undated, the AFOSI Commander disapproved the 
applicant’s Article 138 complaint to withdraw the LOR and UIF 
and reinstate him as a special agent.  

IAW AFI 54-901, the applicant’s Complaint for Redress Under 
Article 138, UCMJ, was reviewed and disapproved by the General 
Court Martial Authority (GCMA), the AFDW Commander, and reviewed 
by USAF/JAA for Secretarial review and disposition as required. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOSI/JA recommends denial. The chain of command took 
appropriate action and complied with applicable regulations.  An 
investigation revealed the applicant abused his authority when 
he attempted to access the installation using his badge and 
credentials rather than comply with security protocols which 
required 100 percent identification check of all members in the 
vehicle.  He made billeting reservations using his badge and 
credentials rather than complying with protocol which required 
the presentation of TDY orders for himself and his guests.  He 
attempted to use his rank of major to obtain further access to 
the flight line which was not otherwise allowable by public 
affairs protocols and he told the 354th Fighter Wing Vice Wing 
Commander he attempted to use his badge and credentials to 
access the base because he was testing the gate security 
procedures which was a false statement since the applicant was 
not on official duty during his visit.  The applicant contends 
the LOR for his misconduct was too harsh and a less severe form 
of actions, such as a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) or Letter of 
Counseling (LOC) should have been taken instead.  Choosing which 
form of administrative action to take is within the discretion 
and authority of a military commander.  In this case, his 
commander acted within the scope of his authority and did not 
abuse said authority in issuing a LOR.  The applicant’s 
misconduct occurred over the course of three days, involved 
personnel at the main gate, billeting, PAO, vice wing commander 
for the installation.  Additionally, his actions disrupted the 
relationship between the local detachment and the host wing.  
The ROI supports the conclusion and the LOR was well within the 
appropriate range of action.  

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On behalf of the applicant, his civilian legal counsel states 
that asking AFOSI to analyze whether AFOSI actions were 
appropriate is not likely to yield any meaningful results.  An 
analysis must be completed by an organization that has no 
interest in the outcome.

Conflicting evidence should be resolved in favor of the 
applicant.  The applicant’s guests were both authorized access 
to the installation and they did not need the applicant’s 
credentials to gain access.  The applicant was also clear that 
he was not sponsoring guests but was merely attempting to 
clarify gate procedures for his own edification.  There is no 
evidence that he used his badge for anything but to identify 
himself.  There is also no evidence that he made billeting for 
anything else than space available and he did not attempt to 
gain any special favors.  During the conversation with the PAO 
officer, she told the applicant she was a reservist with no 
authority so why would the applicant try to strong arm her to 
gain further access.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no 
evidence he lied to the vice wing commander.  The vice wing 
commander does not remember the specific details of the 
conversation and the applicant was only attempting to test 
security procedures.  It is inconsistent and not in the best 
interest of the service to ruin an officer’s career over rumors, 
assumptions and feelings. The ROI states that the applicant was 
not on TDY orders and although orders are required for Title   
10 status and UCMJ jurisdiction, it is not a requirement for 
official business.  Based on the applicant’s e-mail communique 
with the Eielson AFOSI agent, he had every reason to believe he 
was on official business.  Furthermore, he has not been 
decertified from the AFOSI specialty and as a result, has been 
denied opportunities. 

The applicant has been treated unfairly and unduly harsh because 
he was not “one of the boys” as evidenced by the detachment 
commander’s treatment of him over the course of time.  He seized 
the opportunity to get rid of an officer who did not fit in.

The applicant’s legal counsel’s complete submission, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit E. 

________________________________________________________________

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 
careful notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging 
the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  The applicant’s numerous contentions in response to 
the Air Force evaluations are duly noted; however, we do not find 
these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive 
to override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by 
the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  We are not 
persuaded by the evidence that the actions taken by his commander 
were beyond his scope of authority, inappropriate, or arbitrary 
and capricious.  Additionally, the evidence reflects that the 
applicant exercised poor judgment which negatively affected good 
order and discipline.  Consequently, it appears there was a basis 
for the commander to question his judgment and take the 
administrative actions that he did.  As such, and in the absence 
of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting any of the relief sought in this application. 

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

________________________________________________________________


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-2013-00989 in Executive Session on 4 Mar 2014 and     
5 Mar 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member
      
The following documentary evidence was considered:    

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 2013, w/atchs.  
     Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFOSI/JA, undated.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Nov 2013.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Counsel, dated 12 Dec 2013, w/atchs.




                                    
                                   Panel Chair