RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01472

	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1)	All other derogatory information removed from his records to include his Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 10 Mar 14, and his referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), dated 5 Apr 14; 

2)	His Senior Developmental Education (SDE) select status restored; and,

3)	He receive a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion reconsideration.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His wing commander issued a LOR based on false testimony by his group commander and other witnesses and did not properly consider all the available evidence.  The Command Directed Investigation (CDI) failed to credibly prove any of the allegations against him.  The CDI does not support its conclusions nor justify his subsequent reprimand.  The investigating officer (IO) failed to prove he made statements that undermined his commander’s authority and the IO failed to corroborate any of the witnesses’ testimony.  With regard to his perceived unprofessional relationship or favoritism, the IO failed to note several witnesses provided statements that were obviously false and neglected to put his behavior in it proper professional context.  Furthermore, the IO thought the most egregious part of the favoritism allegation he showed towards his superintendent was his removal of a LOR from his superintendent’s Personnel Information File (PIF).  The IO based his conclusion on a single witness and failed to realize his commander explicitly authorized her squadron commanders to remove documents from the PIF.  Finally, the IO should not have done the investigation as there was a conflict of interest between the IO and himself.  Both he and the IO were in the primary zone for promotion competing directly with each other for stratification and promotion recommendation.  His wing commander wrongly; 1) relieved him of command, 2) established an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), 3) filed the LOR in his Officer Selection Record, 3) removed him from the SDE select list; and 4) signed a referral OPR.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel.  

On 36 Dec 13, according to documents provided by the applicant, he was temporarily removed from command in response to allegations of misconduct at which time a CDI was initiated.  

On 18 Feb 14, according to documents provided by the applicant, he filed a complaint to the AETC IG with 14 allegations against his immediate commander.  

On 10 Mar 14, the applicant received a LOR based on the findings of the CDI.

On 27 Mar 14, according to documents provided by the applicant, he was permanently removed from command.  

On 15 Apr 14, the applicant received a referral OPR.  

On 5 May 15 (sic), according to documents provided by the applicant, he submitted an Article 138 request for redress to the 37 TRW/CC requesting LOR withdrawal, referral OPR correction, UIF removal, and derogatory information in his Officer Selection Record removal.  On 13 May 14, the 37 TRW/CC notified him that the request was denied.  

On 12 May 14, the applicant was removed from SDE select status.  

AFI 36-2301, Developmental Education, dated 16 Jul 10, paragraph 8.5 states:

	“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/A1, the officer will be permanently removed from the nomination list. This results in the loss of select status which will appear on the officers SURF, DQHB, and OSB.  A letter will be permanently filed in the Officer Selection Record (OSR) and officers will be permanently ineligible for any future resident DE.  It is the commander’s and Senior Rater’s responsibility to monitor the performance and standards of DE selects and alternates.  Should the propriety of any designee's attendance become questionable, the Senior Rater should notify appropriate management level A1 (e.g., MAJCOM, DRU, FOA) and HQ AFPC/DPAPF immediately.”  (Exhibit H).  

On 22 May 14, according to documents provided by the applicant, he was notified by the 2AF/CC that his 14 allegations against his immediate commander were unsubstantiated.  

On 19 Dec 14, according to documents submitted by the applicant, he filed a complaint with the DoD Inspector General (IG) Hotline.  The case was reviewed and ultimately referred to the Secretary of the Air Force Senior Official Inquiries Directorate (SAF/IGS) since elements of reprisal were present.  In October 2015, SAF/IGS published their report finding the six allegations unsubstantiated.  

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the applicant’s request to remove the LOR as the applicant provides insufficient evidence that the LOR was issued unjustly.  His commander had the authority to issue the LOR and file in the applicant’s Unfavorable Information File (UIF) in accordance with the governing Air Force Instruction based on the findings within the CDI.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SPE recommends denying the applicant’s request to void his contested referral OPR.  The applicant provided insufficient documentation to prove his assertions that the contested evaluation was rendered unfairly or unjustly.  To effectively challenge an evaluation, it is necessary to hear from the investigators or commander and the applicant failed to provide information from the rating officials on the contested report.  Furthermore, the applicant provided a substantial amount of documentation including documents that address the 14 allegations of reprisal the applicant claimed against his immediate supervisor.  Throughout these documents, it was determined the investigations and follow-on actions imposed by the applicant’s chain of command were appropriate.  The evaluators were within their authority to comment on the underlying behavior which caused the report to be referred.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denying the applicant’s request for a SSB since the Air Force Evaluation/Recognitions Program office states the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence the contested OPR was unjust or inaccurate as written.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 20 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit F), and the applicant replied on 13 Aug 18.  In his response, the applicant restates his contention the CDI was flawed and failed to prove any of the allegations against him.  The Board should carefully examine the flawed CDI and find his reprimand he received was without merit.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.   

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, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of Air Force offices of primary responsibility and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  In this regard, the Board finds that the issuance of the LOR and subsequent referral OPR, establishment of the UIF, and removal from SDE select status were all within his commander’s authority and in accordance with governing Air Force Instructions.  Furthermore, since the applicant alleges reprisal by his commander and based on the authority granted to this Board pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. Section he Board reviewed the complete evidence of record to reach its own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred.  The Board concludes the applicant has failed to establish the actions by his commander were due to reprisal.  The Board further notes the applicant’s allegations were thoroughly investigated and reviewed at multiple levels of command without a substantiated finding.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, the Board does not find that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1034.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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.

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-2017-01472 in Executive Session on 17 Oct 18 and 26 Nov 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 2 Feb 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 9 Nov 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPE, dated 22 Jan 18.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 13 Jul 18.
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 Jul 18.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s response, dated 13 Aug 18.
Exhibit H:	Miscellaneous Documents (AFI 36-2301 extract).

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