RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-02621

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 16 May 12 through 28 Jun 13, be declared void and removed from her military personnel records. (Administratively Corrected)

2.  The letter removing her from Senior Development Education (SDE) be removed and her select status be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The punishment she received exceeded any misconduct and had a severe impact on her career as a high performing officer for an administrative error.  She was targeted because she was a single, pregnant female, which violated her commander’s moral values.  

The referral OPR resulted in a trickle-down effect of her removal from SDE, cancellation of her RAND selection and assignment and her Do Not Promote (DNP) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for her Below Promotion Zone (BPZ) promotion board.  In order to replicate what her record would reflect without the referral, her letter needs to be removed and her school status re-instated.  She would have met her BPZ board while transitioning to in-residence SDE (RAND fellow) and her In the Promotion Zone (IPZ) board with a NO PRF while in school.  The statistics for in-residence SDE for IPZ consideration is 100 percent selection rate to colonel (O-6).  The applicant states the LOR she received had the same impact upon a career that an Article 15 has.  However, the UIF was removed early due to high performance and trust,

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is an Air Force lieutenant colonel currently serving in the Regular Air Force.  On 3 May 13, HQ AF/A1 removed the applicant from the SDE designation list and a copy of the letter was filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR).  

According to the AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col), for the period of 16 May 12 thru 28 Jun 13, provided by the applicant, Section XI. Referral Report states in part that the applicant permitted her subordinate to be absent from the work center 70 days in a 10-month period of which 45 days should have been chargeable leave.  The report also states she received an LOR/UIF for unprofessional social relationships and dereliction of duties.

The applicant’s response to the referral OPR, dated 12 Jul 13, provided by the applicant, states “I admittedly failed to properly account for an officer's leave, but I did not maintain an unprofessional relationship with a subordinate. I take full responsibility for my failure to notice my subordinate properly accounted for her leave, but at no time did this affect the high quality of work accomplished by my office.”    

In a letter, dated 11 Oct 17, AFPC/DP2SPP indicates the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) voided the contested OPR and replaced it with an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, to cover the gap in her record.  Additionally, DP2SPP approved the applicant’s request for SSB consideration by the CY13C and CY14C Colonel (LAF) Central Selection Board (Exhibit E).

In an email communique, dated 23 May 18, AFPC/DP3SP stated the applicant’s records met the CY14C SSB on 8 Jan 18 and is currently with General Counsel, pending approval by the Department of the Secretary of Defense (Exhibit G).  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends denying the applicant’s request to void her OPR for the period of 16 May 12 through 28 Jun 13 indicating the applicant failed to exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief (Administratively Corrected).  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3DW recommends granting the applicant’s request to reinstate her SDE select status indicating the applicant was targeted by her leadership over perceived questionable morality vice fraternization.  The applicant suffered in a toxic environment that condoned fraternization as the norm and for her to be punished for the same conduct evidenced by her superiors is mind-boggling.

In Jun 13, the applicant was issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), received a "Do Not Promote" on her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), issued a Referral OPR, and subsequently was removed for cause from SDE designation to attend a RAND fellowship.

IAW AFI 36-2301, Developmental Education, Section B. Officer Developmental Education (DE), paragraph 8, Removal for Cause, “when a request from the Senior Rater, management level, or DT to remove an officer from a DE designation list is approved by AF/Al, the officer will be permanently removed from the nomination list.”  The applicant was removed from DE designation by request from her leadership, endorsed by her Developmental Team (DT) Chair and ultimately approved by AF/Al.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 12 Dec 17 for comment (Exhibit F), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, including those provided by the applicant, it is the Board’s opinion that she is not the victim of an error or injustice. The Board notes AFPC/DP3DW recommends approval of the applicant requests stating the applicant suffered in a toxic environment that condoned fraternization as the norm.  Irrespective of this, according to the documentation provided by the applicant, she received a LOR/UIF for dereliction in the performance of her duties by allowing her subordinate to take 45 days of uncharged leave. While the applicant states she worked hard and the UIF was subsequently removed, in our opinion, this still does not negate the fact that this incident occurred.  As such, the Board does not find the evidence presented sufficient to persuade them that the decision to remove the applicant from the Developmental Education designation list constitutes an error or is unjust.  Therefore, the Board concludes the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to recommend granting 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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-02621 in Executive Session on 6 Jun 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Oct 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPE, dated 26 Sep 16.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3DW, dated 4 Nov 16.
Exhibit E:	Letter, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 11 Oct 17.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 12 Dec 17.
Exhibit G:	Email, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 23 May 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.