RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00779

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: YES 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.   The provided draft Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) be added to her records.  

2.   The relief of command letter dated 8 Mar 18 be removed from her records.

3.   Her officer selection record (OSR) and master personnel records group (MPerGp) show she successfully completed her command tour from 13 Jul 17 to 14 Jul 18.

4.  The letter of reprimand (LOR) dated 11 Jul 18 and unfavorable information file (UIF) be removed from her record.

5.   Her Article 15 dated 29 Jun 18, previously set aside, be removed from her OSR and MPerGp.  

6.   She be considered for senior developmental education (SDE) attendance.

7.  Her corrected OSR meet the May 21 promotion board or she be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for the CY18 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.

8.  She be considered by an SSB for the CY2021 Lieutenant Colonel Line of the Air Force (LAF).

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She successfully demonstrated through two evaluation reports appeal boards (ERAB) the preponderance of evidence in the command directed investigation (CDI) used to remove her from command, issue her a referral OPR and a do not promote (DNP) promotion recommendation form (PRF) was not credible.

She received a DNP PRF for the P0518B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.  The PRF stated she was removed from command for cause, she created an unhealthy command environment, was intoxicated and interacted inappropriately with airmen.  She was wrongfully removed from command and charged with an Article 15 based on the CDI.  The Article 15 was void during the 2018 promotion cycle and her 2018 OPR was removed by the ERAB.  The LOR was also vacated seven months after it was issued.  

The ERAB requested the relief of command letter be removed from her records; however, it remains in her OSR and MPerGp in accordance with DAFPM guidance and DODI 1320.14., DOD Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures. She would like all adverse information associated with her relief of command be set aside so she is no longer negatively impacted.   

She provides a letter of support from the security forces commander dated 2 Nov 18, stating at no time was he aware of a security forces response during the period of 6 Jul 17 to 8 Mar 18 with the applicant identified as a subject.  Additionally, no member of his squadron reported an alcohol related incident involving the applicant and no form of sobriety test was ever conducted on the applicant.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a major (O-4) in the Air Force.

In an e-mail dated 20 Feb 18, the major command (MAJCOM) Inspector General (IG) office informed her senior rater they received allegations of reprisal by the applicant and initiated an investigation.  The IG requested the applicant be informed she was the subject of an IG investigation.  The applicant provides redacted e-mails, testimonies regarding the CDI and character statements.  

In a memorandum dated 6 Mar 18, the applicant’s wing commander (WG/CC) notified the applicant she was relieved of command in accordance with AFI 51-604, Appointment and Assumption of Command, paragraph 14.2, effective 7 Mar 18.  The applicant was scheduled to be reassigned on a permanent change of station (PCS).  

The applicant received a referral OPR for the period ending 31 Mar 18 for engaging in misconduct with enlisted members in her squadron.  She consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication and danced provocatively.  She also did not effectively empower and enable subordinates to succeed.  The working climate became toxic during her tenure, leading to an unhealthy climate.  

The applicant provides AF Form 3070C, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings (Officer), dated 13 Apr 18, which reflects the applicant’s commander who imposed the nonjudicial punishment (NJP) granted her appeal in full and set aside the entire action.  The applicant’s counsel had appealed the NJP and noted evidence was withheld, the investigating officer (IO) came to a conclusion up front, then provided facts to support his conclusion and the IO picked and chose who to interview.  The club manager, bartender and disc jockey were not interviewed.  These individuals would have had the most situational awareness involving alcohol overconsumption and provocative dancing.  It was believed the applicant was treated differently because she was a woman.  She did not act any differently than any other commanders on base and did not willfully fail to maintain a healthy command climate. The applicant’s ARMS records does not include the AF Form 3070C.  

In an e-mail dated 11 May 18,  her squadron commander informed the senior rater the applicant was concerned that comments stricken in the Article 15 were still referenced on her PRF.  The e-mail stated that regardless of whether the Article 15 was void, the letter for removal of her command would remain in her record.  

The applicant provides a LOR dated 11 Jul 18.  The LOR states an investigation disclosed she failed to establish and maintain a healthy command climate, to include treating individuals with disrespect, calling at least one individual a derogatory name and threatening professional harm to others.  The applicant also engaged in unprofessional relations with enlisted members, to include excessive drinking, dancing and close physical interaction.  

The applicant provides AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, for the P0518B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board showing she received a DNP promotion recommendation.  The PRF stated the applicant was removed from command for cause; created an unhealthy command environment, was intoxicated and interacted inappropriately with airmen.  

On 9 Oct 18, the applicant was informed she was considered for promotion by the CY18B Lieutenant Colonel (LAF) CSB but not selected for promotion.  

In a memorandum dated 6 Feb 19, her new senior rater stated that due to the applicant’s PCS, a decision was not made whether to file the LOR in her OSR in accordance with AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System.  As the current new senior rater, he decided the LOR would not be filed in her OSR.  The LOR is not contained in the applicant’s ARMS record.  

On 25 Feb 19, the ERAB approved the applicant’s request for removal of her referral OPR.  The applicant’s ARMS record includes AF Form 77, Letter of Evaluation, which states the OPR for the period of 1 Apr 17 to 31 Mar 18 was removed by order of the Chief of Staff and she was not rated for the period.  The applicant was also advised her case would be forwarded to AFPC Officer Promotions to determine if SSB was warranted.  

In an e-mail dated 20 Jun 19, the applicant informed her former senior rater that since her PCS, she had been taking actions to recover her career.  Her new commander determined the LOR would not be filed in her OSR and the ERAB approved the removal of the referral OPR.  Since the same derogatory information was included on her 2018 PRF, she requested he revise the PRF.  In a response dated 4 Jul 19, he stated he felt it necessary to consider the findings of the CDI initiated in Feb 18 that revealed she did not embody the standards expected of a squadron commander and decided not to alter her 2018 PRF.  

In an e-mail dated 29 Aug 19, her MAJCOM/CC informed the applicant he as the management level review (MLR) president did not have the authority to reverse the decision of her senior rater regarding the DNP recommendation on her PRF.  Since her senior rater declined to alter the PRF, she could submit her grievance with the AFBCMR.  

On 17 Dec 19, the applicant submitted an ERAB requesting her PRF for the P0518B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board, the letter to the board and the removal from command letter be removed from her OSR.  The ERAB approved her application to substitute the report and would process the approved correction evaluation in ARMS.  AFPC/DP2SPE confirmed the applicant was considered by SSB for the CY2018 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.  

In a memorandum dated 22 Jun 21, the applicant was informed she was not selected for promotion by the CY21B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C through E and G.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

DODI 1320.14, DOD Commissioned Officer Promotion Program Procedures, Section 3: Procedures, para c(5), Adverse information will be presented to promotion selection, special selection and federal recognition boards that consider officers for promotion to the grades of regular major through colonel.  Adverse information that is part of the officer’s official military personnel record will be provided to the board.  

AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, paragraph 8.3.15, effective 1 Mar 21, per DAPFM 2021-36-03, adverse information will be permanently placed in the master personnel records group, except for the set aside of a court-martial or nonjudicial punishment action. Removal of adverse information from the master personnel record group may only be directed pursuant to an AFBCMR recommendation. 

AFI 51-509, Appointment to and Assumption of Command, paragraph 14. Relief of Command. Command is a privilege, not a right. As such, a superior competent authority may relieve an officer of command for any reason not prohibited by law or policy. Paragraph 14.2, An officer may be relieved of command for cause, including instances where the superior competent authority has lost confidence in the officer’s ability to command due to misconduct, poor judgment, the subordinate’s inability to complete assigned duties, the interests of good order and discipline, morale, the good of the organization or other similar reasons.

AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, para 8.1.4.1.5, The senior rater is solely responsible for evaluation of each officer’s command selection records group, career brief and duty qualification history brief in order to either award PRF recommendations or submit officers to compete for aggregation or carry-over definitely promote recommendations.   

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial for removal of the LOR.  The commander and supervisor has authority to issue a LOR in accordance with AFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, paragraph 4.1.  Further, the applicant does not have an LOR in her ARMS record.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP3DW recommends denial for the request to be considered for SDE attendance. The applicant does not hold the eligible grade to be nominated for SDE; therefore the documentation provided does not demonstrate they were eligible for nomination during the timeframe of the alleged error or injustice.  If the applicant is granted the request for SSB and is subsequently selected for promotion, then the request for SDE consideration should be supported via a supplemental developmental education designation board held by AFPC, which would require her senior rater’s nomination.  This action would not require BCMR action and can be initiated by AFPC Officer Workforce Development.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2SSM states there is no action required for removal of the vacated Article 15 and the LOR as the referenced documents were never filed in the MPerGp.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent copies of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 3 Jan 22 for comment (Exhibit F).  
 
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial for removal of the relief of command letter, LOR and associated UIF, award of the MSM and SSB consideration for the CY18B, CY19A, CY20B, and CY21B Lieutenant Colonel LAF Promotion Boards.  

The applicant was nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel in the promotion zone (IPZ) on the P0518B (4 Jun 18) Central Selection Board (CSB) and the above-the-promotion zone (APZ) on the CY19A (4 Mar 19), CY20B (4 May 20) and the CY21B (8 Mar 21) LAF CSBs.  However, the applicant was selectively continued on the CY19A Lieutenant Colonel LAF CSB.  

On 7 Mar 18, the applicant was relieved of command based on the results of a CDI.  On 13 Apr 18, the NAF/CC initiated an Article 15, which she appealed. On 29 Jun 18, the appeal was granted and the Article 15 was set aside.  However, on 11 Jul 18, the WG/CC issued the applicant a LOR and established a UIF based on the results of the CDI.  On 6 Feb 19. her new commander subsequently elected not to file the LOR in her OSR.  

On 25 Feb 19, the applicant filed an ERAB and the ERAB approved the request to have the OPR and DNP PRF removed and replaced with an AF Form 77.  AFPC/DP2SPP subsequently approved the applicant for SSB consideration, which convened on 26 May 20.  The applicant was again, nonselected.  

On 26 Feb 19, the Secretary of the Air Force published the Department of the Air Force Policy Memorandum on Adverse Information for Total Force Officer Selection Boards (DAFPM 2021-36-03) requiring all retroactive relief from command memorandums and LORs issued between 1 Jan 12 to 26 Feb 21 to be documented with a memorandum for record and filed in the MPerGp and OSR.  The relief of command letter was placed in the applicant’s OSR for the CY21B CSB due to the new DAFPM Memo, dated 26 Feb 21.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit G.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the additional advisory opinion to the applicant on 10 Jan 22 for comment (Exhibit H), and the applicant replied on 9 Feb 22.  The applicant provides a list of attachments and documentation pertaining to the CDI, relief of command, set aside of the Article 15, LOR and referral OPR.  The applicant also provides photos showing her peers and enlisted personnel dancing and Air Force media showing force support squadrons (FSS) throughout the Air Force promoting dancing.   She also provides email communication with her commander, text messages and her commander’s memorandum dated 14 Aug 17 for initial feedback and expectations.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit I.

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 recommendations of AFPC/DP2SM, DP3DW, DP2SSM and DP2SP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant contends she was wrongfully removed from command and treated differently than her peers due to her gender; however, she has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate this to be the case.  The Board notes the applicant provides photographs of personnel at her duty station dancing and consuming alcohol and contends she did not behave any differently.  However, the Board finds the provided photographs and FSS advertisements promoting dancing insufficient to find the applicant was wrongfully removed from command.  In this respect, the applicant has provided no evidence to show her squadron commander peers created an unhealthy work climate, a toxic environment, engaged with personnel inappropriately, drank alcohol to point of intoxication or danced provocatively for which the applicant was relieved of command.  The Board also notes the CDI into the applicant’s conduct was initiated due to an IG complaint that the applicant reprised against a subordinate and not due to any bias by her commander.  Moreover, while the ERAB removed the referral OPR and the Article 15 was set aside, these actions are insufficient to justify granting the requested relief.  In this respect, the Board finds per AFI 51-604, it was within her commander’s authority to relieve the applicant of command for cause.  The applicant also requests she be awarded an MSM but has provided no evidence to show she was recommended for an end of tour medal.  Since the Board does not recommend correcting her records to show she successfully completed her command tour, the Board finds no reason to award an MSM.  With respect to the request for removal of the LOR and Article 15 from her records, the Board notes these documents are not contained in her ARMS record; accordingly, there is no action for the Board.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.  

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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-2021-00779 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 22 and 7 Mar 22:

 , 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 Mar 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 28 Apr 21.
Exhibit D: Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP3DW, dated 15 Dec 21.
Exhibit E: Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 16 Dec 21. 
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 3 Jan 22.
Exhibit G: Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 7 Jan 22.
Exhibit H: Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 10 Jan 22.  
Exhibit I:  Applicant’s response, w/atchs, undated.