ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04475 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 23 January 2012 and any reference within his military record, be voided and removed. The Officer Performance Report, with a close out date of 24 February 2012, and any reference to the LOR with fraternization, be removed or redacted from his records. He be retroactively promoted to lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of 1 April 2012, with back pay and allowances. RESUME OF CASE: On 5 September 2012, the applicant submitted an application requesting the Board (1) remove the LOR, dated 23 January 2012; (2) remove the Officer Performance Report, with a close out date of 24 February 2012 and (3) Retroactively promote him to lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of 1 April 2012, with back pay and allowances. On 7 January 2014, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request. AFPC/DPSIM rendered an advisory noting the LOR and the Unfavorable Information File were completed in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program. AFPC/DPSID rendered an advisory stating the applicant did not provide compelling evidence to show the OPR was unjust or inaccurate. AFPC/DPSOO provided an advisory citing AFI 36- 2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation, which states “commanders question promotion when the preponderance of evidence shows the officer has not met the requirement for exemplary conduct set forth in Title 10 U.S.C. 8583, or is not mentally physically, morally or professional qualified to perform the duties of the higher grade.” DPSOO further noted the actions were legally sufficient to warrant the action taken. Through counsel, the applicant rebutted the advisories and maintained that he did not commit the offenses alleged, the investigation was not legally sufficient and the punishment was unwarranted and excessive given the minor nature of the accusations. Ultimately, the Board found no error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The Board concluded that after the Commander Directed Investigation substantiated the findings of fraternization, the commander had the discretion to decide how to dispose of the matter. The Board also did not find the commander’s actions arbitrary or capricious. As such, the Board found the applicant had not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant submitted a request for reconsideration dated 4 December 2014. Through counsel, the applicant submits a statement from the alleged victim as new evidence in support of his request for reconsideration (Attachments 3 and 4). Counsel states the new evidence shows the CDI Investigating Officer intentionally misquoted the alleged victim and created an intimidating and hostile environment. The new evidence also clarifies the alleged victim never interacted with the applicant on the terms of military equality. Counsel believes this information would have influenced the Board had it been available initially. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In an earlier finding, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of this appeal and the evidence of record, we do not believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in our previous decision. The applicant has provided a letter of clarification from the alleged victim in this case in an effort to demonstrate alleged inequities with the CDI Investigating Officer; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence that the actions taken against the applicant in this case were arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request. 2. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel or attainment of additional advisories will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2012-04475 in Executive Session on 12 November 2015 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit H. Original Record of Proceedings with Exhibits A through G. Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 14 and 1 Jun 15, w/atchs.