RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01079

      					COUNSEL:  

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 13 Sep 13, be declared 
void and removed from his military personnel records.

2.  His Unfavorable Information File (UIF), established on 
27 Sep 13, be declared void and removed from his military 
personnel records.

3.  His Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the 
period 9 Feb 13 through 8 Feb 14, be declared void and removed 
from his military personnel records.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The LOR he received contained factual inaccuracies in its 
allegations of impropriety with another officer.  The 
allegations that he was in an unprofessional relationship is 
unfair and unfounded when the law is applied to the facts.  The 
decision to issue the LOR, rather than a lesser disciplinary 
action, was unduly influenced by the media and Air Force 
leadership’s focus on sexual assault prevention and by 
association, unprofessional relationships.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 20 Jul 09, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force. 

On 30 Sep 14, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and 
was credited with 5 years, 2 months, and 11 days of active 
service.

On 1 Oct 14, the applicant was appointed and assigned to the Air 
Force Reserves.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force Offices 
of Primary Responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits 
C through E.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the LOR and UIF indicating the proper procedures were 
followed for issuing the LOR and there was insufficient evidence 
to warrant removing the UIF.  

On 13 Sep 13, the applicant received a LOR for an unprofessional 
relationship and the applicant’s commander decided to file the 
LOR but not the UIF in his Officer Selection Record (OSR).  
After careful review, the evidence presented was completed 
properly and the correct procedures were followed to administer 
the LOR, in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information 
File Program.  

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the contested OPR.  Based on the insufficient evidence 
provided and the presumed legitimacy of the original crafting of 
the OPR, the contested evaluation should not be voided from the 
applicant’s permanent record.  The applicant has not provided 
compelling evidence to show that the report is unjust or 
inaccurate as written.

The applicant received a referral OPR after receiving an LOR for 
engaging in an unprofessional relationship while at pre-
deployment training.  The applicant was alleged to have engaged 
in an unprofessional relationship with a fellow officer.  These 
allegations were substantiated through an investigation.  Based 
on the evidence of the applicant's unprofessional behavior, the 
applicant's evaluators chose to document and offered comments 
regarding the underlying wrongdoing.  The applicant has provided 
no evidence to show that the referral comment on the OPR was 
inaccurate or unjust; therefore, the inclusion of the referral 
comment on the OPR was appropriate and within the evaluator's 
authority to document.  Based upon the presumed sufficiency of 
the LOR as served to the applicant, the contested report was 
proper and in accordance with all applicable Air Force policies 
and procedures.  Consequently, the applicant's appeal is without 
merit.

Although the applicant may feel the LOR and subsequent mention 
on his contested evaluation was an injustice, his rating chain 
were in the best position to evaluate his duty performance, on 
and off-duty, during the contested rating period.  The applicant 
does not provide any evidence to substantiate his assertions 
that the evidence used to support the LOR was insufficient.  
Additionally, no evidence has been provided that any of the 
administrative actions commented on the report have been 
rescinded or otherwise invalidated.  Therefore, the inclusion of 
the referral comment on the OPR was appropriate and within the 
evaluators authority to document given the incidents in 
question.  

Lastly, we concur with DPSIM's assessment to deny removal of the 
LOR.  Based upon the legal sufficiency of the LOR and no 
evidence that the punishment was ever removed, we find that its 
mention in the applicant's contested report was appropriate, and 
as such there is no basis to support removal of the contested 
evaluation.  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.

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/JA concurred with DPSIM and DPSID’s recommendation to deny 
the applicant’s request to remove the LOR and UIF, indicating 
the actions taken against the applicant were supported by the 
evidence of record and constituted a proper exercise of the 
commander’s discretion.  Those actions were not an overreaction 
to the Air Force’s effort to halt sexual assault, nor were they 
otherwise unfair or unjust under the circumstances.

The applicant’s counsel avers that these adverse actions are not 
supported by the evidence of record and constitute an 
overzealous overreaction to the incident.  However, while 
certain specific nuances in behavior might be debated, the 
overall evidence supports the LOR.  The essential elements of 
the LOR were well established, and attempts by the applicant and 
his counsel to discredit the evidence by arguing that the 
primary witness was too intoxicated to observe accurately and 
take appropriate action represents only the applicant’s opinion 
that is not otherwise supported by the evidence of record. 

Additionally, the applicant’s counsel also alleges that the 
issuance of the LOR and the referral OPR that followed was an 
overreaction fueled by a memo sent to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.  First, in 
response, we note that AFI 36-2907, paragraph 4.1.1, with 
respect to imposition of an LOR, provides “Raters must consider 
making comments on performance reports when the ratee receives 
any of these adverse actions.”  Second, the Chief of Staff’s 
memo and the associated Air Force campaign are concerned with 
sexual assault, not other unprofessional behavior that may 
involve sexual comment or consensual sexual behavior.  The 
allegation that the actions taken against the applicant were an 
overreaction to the Chief of Staff’s comments constitutes 
unproven conjecture.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.





APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant’s counsel on 12 May 15 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F).  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 to warrant 
removing the applicant’s LOR, UIF and OPR.  We took notice of 
the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the 
case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of 
the Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error of 
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 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-2014-01079 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                  , Member
	                    , Member

?
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-01079 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 6 Jun 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 6 Apr 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 16 Apr 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 15.