RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03502

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her referral officer performance report (OPR) for the period ending 16 Mar 15 be removed from her records.

Her letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 19 Dec 14 be removed from her records.

Her Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) select status for the P0411D Major Promotion Board be reinstated.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The LOR was based on false accusations.  She submitted a lengthy rebuttal with evidence, which should have warranted removal of the LOR.  However, it was allowed to remain in effect.  Her commander used false accusations to enforce career impacting unfavorable personnel actions and  made it appear to her chain of command her removal from duties as the squadron operations manager, the referral OPR and removal from the IDE select list were warranted.  

The LOR and referral OPR were based on the belief she lied about her communication with the Thunderbirds when she was an applicant for their team.  She provides an e-mail from the Thunderbirds Executive Officer who told her the things she was accused of lying about.  

She had an impeccable career but as a result of the unfavorable personnel actions, she has suffered mediocre OPRs, was not allowed to attend IDE in-residence, was not eligible for awards and decorations, lost her chance for below-the-zone (BPZ) promotions, and was recently passed over for in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) to lieutenant colonel.  Over the past two and a half years, she has exhausted all administrative remedies to correct her record.  

She provides a timeline of events, documentation on the unfavorable personnel actions and letters of support.  She requests the Board review the documentation to make an assessment on the validity, appropriateness, and fairness of the actions.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a major in the Air Force, with date of rank (DOR) and effective date for promotion of 1 Dec 13.  

The applicant provides a copy of her LOR dated 19 Dec 14.   She pursued the Thunderbirds Executive Officer position although she was told she would not be a nominee for the position, it was a first lieutenant billet and she was a major, she would not be released by AFPC and she was vectored for IDE in-residence.  She put her personal interest ahead of service, voiced she did not care to go to IDE and preferred to remain at Nellis AFB, NV and showed disrespect towards her chain of command for interfering with her pursuit.  In her rebuttal to the LOR, she provided a chronology of events and stated she was unaware she was not eligible for the position and believed the position was as important as attending IDE in-residence since she had already completed it by correspondence. She said she was sorry to have let her chain of command down and looked forward to  the opportunity to redeem herself.  

On 24 Dec 14, her senior rater determined the LOR would not be filed in her OSR.  

The applicant received a referral OPR for the reporting period 17 Mar 14 to 16 Mar 15 and was marked as “Does Not Meet Standards” for the performance factors of Professional Qualities and Judgment and Decisions. Reasons for the referral report include a LOR and UIF for misrepresenting information to her leadership to advance a personal agenda and removal from duties as the operations officer due to loss of confidence.  It also stated she should not command at squadron level.  The additional rater (MSG/CC) and reviewer (ABW/CC) concurred with the referral OPR on 26 Mar 15 and 31 Mar 15, respectively.    

On 21 Sep 15, AF/A1 approved the request to cancel her DE assignment and remove IDE selection status.  A copy of the letter was filed in the applicant’s OSR and in accordance with AFI 36-2301, Developmental Education, the applicant would no longer be eligible for future in-residence DE.   For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C, D and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial for removal of the LOR.  The applicant did not provide evidence the LOR displayed false information.  While she provides e-mails from the Thunderbirds representative, she provided no documentation to invalidate her nonselection by AFPC or the MSG/CC.  

Further, no action is required to remove the LOR as it was not filed in her OSR and is not in her automated records management (ARMS) record.  The applicant’s UIF would also have been due to expire two years after the LOR was issued and would have been destroyed per AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File Program.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3SP recommends denial for removal of the referral OPR.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice to the contested evaluation.  The applicant has not provided compelling evidence to show the report is unjust or inaccurate as written.  Additionally, the applicant in her rebuttal acknowledged and apologized for her actions stating it was a mistake and poor judgment on her part.  She filed an Evaluation Review Appeal Board (ERAB) application, which was denied.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.  

AFPC/DP3DW recommends the applicant’s DE designation be reinstated.  She was permanently removed from her DE designation for cause per AFI 36-2301 at the request of her DT Chair and the request was approved by AF/A1.  In the opinion of AFPC/DP3DW, the disciplinary action looks like “nit-picking,” a position supported by the letters of support she provides.  It is possible she was targeted by her commander for disciplinary action without substantial cause and the punishment did not fit the crime.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 30 Jul 18 for comment (Exhibit F).  She agrees with AFPC/DP3DW who recommend relief.  A number of senior officers have reviewed her documents and agree she was not treated fairly.  

AFPC/DP2SSM and DP3SP state she has not provided sufficient evidence.  The majority of the communications of the events were misconstrued, miscommunicated or based on hearsay.  Her squadron commander was careless and reckless with why and how she imposed disciplinary action.  She targeted female officers and took every opportunity to negatively impact female officers who had stellar records.  She witnessed many of these actions in the two years she was the operations manager.  The timing of her LOR made it easy for her to build a case and proceed with a referral OPR.  In addition to giving her a referral OPR based on untruths, she disregarded the presentation and handling of her OPR per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations.  

AFPC/DP2SSM states she was advised by the assignments team she would not be released for the Thunderbirds position.  This is not true, she had a phone conversation with her assignments officer and there is no email traffic that shows they discussed the issue.  He warned her if she was selected for the Thunderbirds position she would not go to school.  The Thunderbirds position was a first lieutenant billet but it had repeatedly been filled with majors and captains.  A major was the sitting executive officer at the time.  DP2SSM also states she disregarded the final decision to pursue the job.  This is also untrue as she had several conversations with her leadership to discuss her tour.  

In Feb 15, she filed an inspector general (IG) complaint.  Based on the recommendation of her investigator, she filed a complaint for reprisal but believed her case should have been filed for abuse of authority.  Two years after filing her complaint, she received notification there was not enough evidence to prove reprisal.  

In addition to her response to the advisory opinions, she provides letters of support, to include from other officers who suffered injustices from her commander.   These letters and the letters provided in her application show she was treated unjustly.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments 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 reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant has presented evidence sufficient to demonstrate an injustice.   While AFPC/DP2SSM and DP3SP recommend denial for removal of the LOR and referral OPR, we disagree.  With respect to the LOR, we note the LOR was not filed in the applicant’s OSR and is not in her records; therefore, no action by the Board is required for removal of the LOR.   The applicant in her rebuttal response advised she submitted an IG complaint for reprisal, which was not substantiated.  While her commander’s actions may not have risen to a level of reprisal, there was miscommunication regarding her pursuit for an assignment with the Thunderbirds and her commander may have created a toxic work environment.  It is also our opinion that absent a direct or written order for the applicant to stop pursuing the assignment, the LOR, removal from duties as the squadron’s operations officer, the referral OPR and removal from the IDE select list were unduly harsh.  We note AFPC/DP3DW states her commander may have targeted her for disciplinary action without substantial cause and recommend her IDE select status be reinstated.  While we agree the applicant may have been unduly targeted for disciplinary action, in our opinion the proper remedy given the passage of time and the applicant’s time-in-grade as a major is that she be considered by a SSB for the CY15A, CY16B, CY17A and CY18A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSB) and she be considered for DE attendance by her senior rater and DT Chair in accordance with current policies and procedures for DE attendance. We also recommend the AF/A1 memorandum dated 21 Sep 15 rendering the applicant ineligible for future DE attendance be removed from her OSR to not taint her promotion consideration by the SSB.  Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Board recommends correcting the applicant’s records as indicated below.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

a.	AF Form 707, Officer Performance Report (Lt thru Col),  for the reporting period  of  17 
Mar 14 thru 16 Mar 15, be void and removed from her records and replaced with an AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation which states “Not rated for the above period.  Evaluation was removed by Order of the SecAF.”  

b.	She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a special selection 
board (SSB) for the CY15A (P0515A), CY16B (P0516B), CY17A (P0517A) and CY18A
(P0518A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards.

c.	AF/A1 memorandum dated  21 Sep 15, removing her from future in-residence DE 
attendance be removed from her OSR.  

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-2017-03502 in Executive Session on 2 Oct 18:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member.  

All members voted to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 27 Jul 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 20 Nov 17.
Exhibit D: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 1 May 18.
Exhibit E: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3DW, dated 26 Jul 18.  
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 30 Jul 18.
Exhibit G: Applicant’s response, w/atch, dated 28 Aug 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, regarding Docket Number BC-2017-