RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00544

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 19 August 2019, unfavorable information file (UIF), Do Not Promote (DNP) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the P0419E Board and any adverse material related to the LOR be voided and removed from his record; and the corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of major (O-4) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) and if applicable, back pay.   

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

This application is the unfortunate result of a commander’s gross overreaction to an administrative inconvenience triggered by a change in regulations that impacted the performance of a collateral duty.  In June 2019, he conducted an annual equipment inventory as part of a collateral duty as Automatic Data Processing Equipment (ADPE) Manager.  He spent approximately 20 hours over several days outside of his regular duties inventorying equipment but was unable to locate 59 of nearly 300 items.  He promptly disclosed his findings and requested that a Financial Liability Investigation (FLI) be conducted in accordance with Air Force instructions.  The LOR contains many allegations that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence and in many cases factually inaccurate.  He did not fail to account for 105 missing items and he was not derelict in his duties.  He had a plan to account for and remedy the 59 unaccounted for items.  The government did not incur any expense for replacement, waste of manpower or degradation of mission capabilities.  There is no evidence that he demonstrated a lack of honesty, integrity, conduct or self-discipline.  To allow this LOR to stand when its inaccuracies are coupled with the pure inequity of the commander’s leadership approach, which directly conflicts with AFI 36-2907, Administrative Adverse Actions, would be unjust.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a former captain (O-3) in the Regular Air Force.  

On 19 August 2019, the applicant received a LOR for being derelict in the performance of his duties in that he negligently failed to account for military property of which he was the primary custodian, as it was his duty to do.  Investigation disclosed that an inventory conducted when he was appointed as the primary equipment custodian and primary property custodian on 25 June 2018 revealed information technology (IT) assets were missing.  An equipment inventory conducted by the applicant the week of 3 June 2019 revealed 59 of those IT assets were still unaccounted for.

AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation (PRF), prepared for the P0419E Board reflects an overall recommendation of “Do Not Promote This Board.”

On 31 October 2021, the applicant was honorably discharged.  He served nine years, nine months and nine days on active duty.  His narrative reason for separation reflects “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion.”

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

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.  The commander and supervisor has authority to issue a LOR IAW AFI 36-2907 paragraph 4.1.  IAW AFI 36-2907 paragraph 4.1.3 there is no requirement to prove any allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 23 September 2021 and 30 September 2021 for comment (Exhibit D), and counsel for the applicant replied on 5 November 2021.  Counsel for the applicant contends the advisory fails to dispute or even address the substantive issues raised in the application.  The advisory provides no evidence whatsoever to dispute that the applicant took meaningful and sincere efforts to properly fulfill his collateral duty as an ADPE Manager in accordance with current AFIs, or to show that the LOR is factually or legally accurate.  The advisory provides conflicting information regarding the LOR and highlights the haphazard way the commander handled the issue. Specifically, it states that the LOR is not in the automated records management system (ARMS) or official military record.  However, it also cites AFI 36-2907 which states that “Commanders must file a LOR in the unfavorable information file (UIF) for officers.”  Thus, the advisory effectively contends that the commander failed to follow the applicable AFI when issuing the LOR.  If true, this is another reason to grant relief.  Regardless if the document was placed in his record, it harmed his career and cost him a promotion to O-4 which resulted in his recent involuntary discharge for failure to promote.  This commander disregarded the AFI throughout the entire process when he skipped lesser forms of counseling and issued an LOR contrary to the applicable AFI and principles of good leadership. Ultimately, if the advisory is correct and the LOR is not in the applicant’s record, there is no harm with the Board issuing a directive granting relief in this regard to ensure this in fact occurs.  Counsel for the applicant also provided a letter from a master sergeant that indicates he assisted the applicant with the annual inventory in which all but 20 items were located.  For this reason alone the LOR should be removed.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SSM and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  We note the contentions from the applicant and counsel; however, this does not negate the fact that an investigation disclosed that an inventory conducted when the applicant was appointed as the primary equipment custodian and primary property custodian on 25 June 2018 revealed that information technology (IT) assets were missing.  Further, commanders, supervisors and those in authority can issue reprimands according to the applicant’s actions.  As such, absent evidence the applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled, the commander abused their discretionary authority, or appropriate standards were not applied, the board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

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-2021-00544 in Executive Session on 15 December 2021:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 23 December 2020.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 22 June 2021.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 23 September 2021.
Exhibit E:	Counsel’s Response, w/atchs, dated 5 November 2021 and 10 December 2021. 

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