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.