RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02248
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File
(UIF) and Control Roster, be removed from her records.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She does not believe that the allegations pertaining to the LOR
were correct and not justified according to Air Force
regulations.
In support of the applicants appeal, she provides documents
extracted from her military personnel records and other
documentation.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade
of technical sergeant.
On 22 April 2013, the applicant received a LOR, UIF, and was
placed on a Control Roster for dereliction of duty (failed to
perform his duties as the Wing Airfield Driving Program Manager)
and falsifying records with regards to the Airfield Driving
Program. On 22 April 2013, the applicant acknowledged receipt
of the LOR, UIF and Control Roster. The applicant provided a
rebuttal dated 22 April 2013. After review of the applicants
rebuttal, the commander decided to uphold the LOR and establish
a UIF and Control Roster.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial. DPSIM states this office cannot
speak to whether or not the commanders actions were just or
not; as most, they can only discuss if proper procedure was
followed in the administration of action. Based on the
evidence, the commander administered the LOR and UIF as outlined
in the AFI.
The control roster is a rehabilitative tool for commanders to
use. Commanders use the control roster to setup a six month
observation period (HQ AFRC or HQ ARPC may establish longer
observation periods, not to exceed 12 months, for Reserve
personnel if deemed appropriate) for individuals whose duty
performance is substandard or who fail to meet or maintain Air
Force standards of conduct, bearing, and integrity, on or off
duty. In conclusion, the commander was within his authority to
place the member on a Control Roster.
The DPSIM complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 31 October 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within
30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been
received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
_
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
applicants contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt its 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 evidence to
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
_
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2013-02248 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 May 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 25 September 2013.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 31 October 2013.
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03463
He was notified the control roster action automatically placed him on the FY13 Rollback Program. He contacted the Separations office at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph to correct this issue, but they were unable to manually change separation code on DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, because the automatic LGH separation code was loaded in their system. On 15 Jul 13, the applicant was separated under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, with a RE code of 2X;...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04397
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates his narrative reason for separation as Reduction in Force and his RE code as 4D. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the military personnel records, are contained in the evaluations from the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01889
The applicant requests in the statement that eight areas of evidence be reviewed: 1. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of an 18-page congressional complaint of evidence, with attachments; the LOR and contested OPR with attachments, emails, a conversation transcript with her former commander, memoranda for record, a witness statement, character reference/witness lists, and extracts from her master personnel records. The complete DPAPF evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05859
The reasons for the referral OPR were wrongful sexual contact with one female employee and sexual harassment of multiple female employees for which he received a LOR, UIF and CR action. Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the LOR, UIF and CR as served to the applicant, DPSID concludes that its mention on the contested report was proper and IAW all applicable Air Force policies and procedures. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-00608
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00608 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Removal of the Letter of Reprimand (LOR), Unfavorable Information File (UIF) and Control Roster action from his records and that his promotion line number to technical sergeant (E-6) be reinstated. The Letter of Reprimand, dated 23 November 2004,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00756
The board should still consider whether the Control Roster which was issued not only for the contested FA failure, but also for two additional FA failures should be removed. HQ AFPC/DPSIDE administratively corrected the applicants EPR (by voiding the report) for the period 12 Aug 08 through 11 Apr 10, and replacing it with an AF Form 77 stating not rated for the time period, report was removed by order of Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Additionally, this action resulted in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03715
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03715 INDEX CODE: 100.06, 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive a reenlistment (RE) code that would enable her to reenlist in the Air Force or at least, in the Air National Guard (ANG) and that the following be removed from her record: 1. While she contends she received...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02582
The LOR dated 14 Mar 12, be removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIM recommends approval of the applicants requests to remove the FA dated 13 Dec 11 and 12 Mar 12. DPSIM notes the applicant provided documentation which states she was not medically fit for her FA due to snapping hip syndrome. DPSIM also recommends the applicants LORs dated 19 Dec 11 and 14 Mar 12 be removed from her records as both...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00208 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her nonselection for reenlistment and the Unfavorable Information(UIF)/Control Roster actions be rescinded; she be promoted, with all back pay; and she be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM. DPPAE indicated that a review of the applicant's military personnel records revealed she was nonselected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04992
On 9 May 2012, the applicant submitted an additional response to his denial of reenlistment and demotion action because he indicated that he just received the ROI. On 19 September 2012, by authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, his 3 August 2012 request for redress filed under Article 138 was denied as the actions taken by the command were determined to be appropriate to the circumstances. The applicants discharge was correctly administered on the basis of his RE code of 2X (denied...