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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 commander’s 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 applicant’s 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.