RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03593 INDEX CODE: 126.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The letter of reprimand (LOR) he received on 17 Aug 07 be removed from his records. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The LOR is unjust, unfair, and the result of a grave mistake. The LOR caused him to lose his line number for staff sergeant and denied him reenlistment. He had minimal rights and due process with the LOR. He has tried every measure to plead his innocence and reverse the injustice. The injustice boiled down to a case of his word against the word of two females. One possible reason or theory for the LOR is that one of the females is the daughter of a lieutenant colonel and this may have added pressure on his commander to take action. He cannot think of another reason as to why he has been punished so harshly, other than personal bias, when the best evidence does not show he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He does not believe he should be denied reenlistment based on a LOR as legally dubious as the one he received. In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of his LOR, letter denying him reenlistment, a copy of his AF IMT Form 416, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, copies of his written appeals, a witness statement, and a copy of the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Informal Complaint Summary Report, with attachments. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 25 Nov 02 and is currently serving in the grade of senior airman. The LOR did not cause the applicant to lose his line number for staff sergeant. However, his commander’s non-recommendation for promotion did. The commander also concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation to deny reenlistment (which also made him ineligible for promotion). Other relevant facts are contained in the Air Force evaluations at Exhibits C, D, and E, respectively. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSI recommends denial. The use of a LOR by commanders and supervisors is an exercise of supervisory authority and responsibility. An individual has three (3) duty days upon receipt to submit rebuttal documents for consideration to the initiator. The LOR states that the applicant specifically made an inappropriate gesture to two females. The applicant conducted himself in such a manner that made both females feel uncomfortable in their work environment and brought discredit upon himself, his squadron, and the Air Force. Although the applicant provided a written rebuttal and a character witness statement, the commander decided to place the LOR in the applicant’s existing unfavorable information file (UIF). He has failed to provide evidence to support his claim that the LOR was unwarranted or unjustified. The complete AFPC/DPSI evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. On 24 Aug 07, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation to deny reenlistment. The applicant acknowledged the commander’s intent and indicated his intention to appeal the decision on 30 Aug 07. Documentation submitted by the applicant does not reflect an appeal authority decision although the applicant states he submitted an appeal and it was subsequently denied. DPSOA states that a review of the applicant’s personnel record did not reveal an error or injustice to support the requested change. The complete DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/JA recommends denial. According to the documentation provided by the applicant, the applicant’s nonverbal action and comments could constitute sexual harassment. He was administered three (3) LORs within 13 months for showing inappropriate videos (6 Jun 06 and 10 Jan 07) in the classroom and unprofessional behavior (17 Aug 07). The applicant acknowledged he played the inappropriate videos, but denied he acted inappropriately. With regard to the applicant’s appeal, airmen must submit their appeals to the military personnel flights no later than ten (10) calendar days from the day they complete section V of the AF Form 418. In this case, it is not evident from the record that the applicant ever submitted an appeal. The partial memo dated approximately 30 days after the applicant was required to submit an appeal (9 Oct 07) would not have been processed by the MPF as the appeal was not received by the appeal date (approximately 10 Sep 07). An additional non-recommendation from a commander is not necessary. In this case, the commander notified the applicant of his non-recommendation for promotion to staff sergeant in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, paragraph 3.2. AFPC/JA states that this additional notification did not prejudice the applicant in any manner; no issue of error or injustice warranting the requested relief was presented by the applicant; and actions taken were in accordance with applicable directives and the propriety of the actions by the commander is fully supported by the documented misconduct of the applicant. The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 Feb 08 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 error or injustice. 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 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 evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 Docket Number BC- 2007-03593 in Executive Session on 20 Mar 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 31 Oct 07. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSI, dated 26 Nov 07. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 13 Dec 07. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 4 Feb 08. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 08.