RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-02516

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Letter of Admonishment (LOA) dated 02 Feb 17, Letters of Reprimand (LORs) dated 30 Mar 17, 17 Oct 17 and 15 Nov 17, and Letter of Counseling (LOC) dated 30 Jan 18 be removed from her military personnel records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In five separate DD Forms 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, the applicant makes the following comments:

a.	The LOA should be removed from her records because she received it in violation of a local policy that she did not know about.  Her unit was on a holiday pass between Christmas and New Year’s, which she was required to sign-in during the period of the pass.  She met with her element leader and supervisor prior to the start of the pass and neither of them told her about the requirement.  However, they told her that an email was sent to her and her email was full.  She did not leave the local area while being on pass and actually went to her duty area and ran into her element leader.  Had she known she was supposed to sign in; she would have willingly done so.  Her family had dinner with her superintendent, but there was no mention of the signing in requirement.

b.	The LOR issued to her on 30 Mar 17 should be removed from her records because she did not lie or have any intention to lie to her squadron commander or anyone else.  At the time, her husband was unable to find work consistent with his qualifications in the local area, so he decided to help a base contracting firm with temporary work as he was getting frustrated at being home.  They did not consider this work as employment, however, her leadership wrote her up for lying about his employment.  Her leadership should have provided clarification if they though she misunderstood the requirement because she is originally from India and English is her third language.

c.	The LOR issued on 17 Oct 17 should be removed because she feels she was discriminated against and discretely retaliated and reprised against for filing an Equal Opportunity (EO) and Inspector General (IG) complaint.  She took leave to get her husband and daughter relocated to Virginia.  She could not return to the local area before her leave expired as she was mentally depressed, physically exhausted, and did not feel well enough to travel.  However, she did return the next day, which should have been her travel day.  The AFI allows a member to delay returning to their duty station if they are not feeling well.  She explained the reason for citing the AFI and provided a support Memorandum for Record from an Area Defense Counsel (ADC).  

d.	The LOR issued on 15 Nov 17 should be removed from her records because she unintentionally used her Government Travel Card (GTC) to buy groceries.  Her GTC was swiped twice; however, the transaction did not go through.  She received another LOR instead of being verbally counseled.  The trend of being discriminated against and the harassment continues for being the only Indian nurse assigned to her unit.  

e.	The LOC issued on 30 Jan 18 should be removed from her records because she was being micromanaged and excessively scrutinized by her supervisor.  She was required to sign-in and out every day.  She had to inform her supervisor of any medical appointments; however, one day she could not find her supervisor to let her know that she had a video appointment set-up with her husband, so that she could virtually be at a doctor’s appointment with her daughter.  As soon as the video appointment was finished, she told her supervisor that she had a mental health appointment that her medical provider had requested, and her supervisor began yelling at her and the next day she received a LOC.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Oct 10, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force.  

On 02 Feb 17, the applicant received a LOA for failure to report to duty between 28 Dec 16 and 01 Jan 17, which was is a direct violation according to AFI 36-3003, Leave Program.  She provided a written response on her own behalf on 4 Feb 17.

On 30 Mar 17, the applicant received a LOR for making a false official statement.  Specifically, she stated her husband was unemployed; however, minutes after a meeting with her commander, the applicant admitted to another member of the squadron that her husband had a job.  She provided a written response on her own behalf on 3 Apr 17.

On 12 Jun 17, the applicant filed a claim with 81 TRW/IG; however, according to the AETC/IGQ memorandum, dated 22 Sep 17, IGQ concurred with 81 TRW/IG and recommended the applicant’s case be dismissed, as the evidence supports reprisal did not occur, as defined by 10 U.S.C. 1034.  Rather, the applicant’s Reprisal Complaints (RCs) were not an inference of causation for the actions taken against her, but were the result of performance issues. It was not in the best interest of the Air Force to expend further scarce resources to investigate the matter further, see Exhibit C for specific analysis of the facts of the case.

On 17 Oct 17, the applicant received a LOR for dereliction of duties and violating Article 92, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), by failing to return to the local area at the end of her approved leave. The applicant previously submitted a leave request that clearly stated that the last day of leave would be 1 Sep 17, and such leave request was approved.  She provided a written response on her own behalf on 2 Sep 17.

On 15 Nov 17, the applicant received a LOR for misusing her GTC by attempting three times to use her GTC at the Keesler Commissary and twice at TJ Maxx in violation of the Travel Card program.  She did not provide a written response to the LOR.

On 30 Jan 18, the applicant received a LOC for failure to obey a lawful order or regulation.  On 29 Jan 18, the applicant again failed to notify flight leadership of an appointment that she had scheduled over a week prior to scheduled duty day.  Her Senior Defense Counsel provides a written response on her behalf on 2 Feb 18.

According to the Automated Case Tracking System (ACTS) printout generated on 29 Aug 18, SAG/IG closed the applicant’s IG complaint on 15 May 18 by concurring with the 81 AETC/IG recommendation that there is no evidence to support reprisal as defined by 10 USC 1034.  The results were forwarded to DoD IG on 16 May 18.   

On 10 Jul 18, the applicant received an honorable discharge in the grade of captain after serving 7 years, 8 months, and 23 days of active service.

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denying the application.    Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  All administrative actions were authorized to be issued by the applicant’s leadership for failure to adhere to standards IAW AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF).  The applicant did not provided sufficient evidence to warrant removal of administrative actions.  If the Board grants the applicant’s request, no actions are required by AFPC to remove the LOA, LORs, or LOC, as the documents were not filed in the applicant’s military record. 

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 29 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit E), 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, 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 AFPC/DP2SSM and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant alleges she has been the victim of a reprisal.  As noted above, on 12 Jun 17, the applicant filed an IG complaint.  In response, AETC/IGQ found that a preponderance of the evidence did not support reprisal and recommended DISMISSAL.  SAF/IGQ concurred and recommended it be DISMISS.  According to the ACTS printout, it reflects the applicant’s case was closed on 15 May 18 as no evidence to support her allegations.  Nevertheless, based on the authority granted to this Board pursuant to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1034, we reviewed the complete evidence of record to reach our own independent determination of whether reprisal occurred.  Based on our review, we did not find any connection between the applicant’s IG complaint and the issuance of the LOA, LOR, and LOC, and UIF issued for failing to report to duty, for misusing her GTC, and for failing to obey a lawful order or regulation.  In view of the foregoing, we conclude the applicant has failed to establish the actions by her commander to issue the LOA, LOR, LOC, and initiate a UIF, were due to reprisal for her making the protected communication.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we do not find that the applicant has been the victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10, U.S.C. Section 1034.

5.  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 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-2018-02516 in Executive Session on 3 Oct 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 24 Jun 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:  Memorandum, AETC/IG, w/atchs, dated 22 Sep 17.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 14 Aug 18.
Exhibit E:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 29 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.