AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00869 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The Article 15,  dated 8 November 1995, be set aside and that he 
be reimbursed*$1,800.00 in pay forfeitures. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was falsely accused of Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 
violations and was punished, which was a blatant miscarriage of 
justice.  While he admits to lying to his supervisor, Lt Colonel 
R- - - ,  he  contends  it  was  his  word  against  Airman  K---  A--- 
(hereinafter referred  to  as  'Ithe subordinate") ,  regarding  the 
maltreatment  charge  and  that  the  subordinate  was  lying. 
Regarding the lie to his supervisor, he made an error in judgment 
while  his  supervisor  interrogated him  under  hostile  conditions 
without  affording  him  his  rights  under  Article  31,  UCMJ. 
Applicant also contends that the commander ignored the advice of 
a Board Certified Psychiatrist regarding the subordinate's mental 
status and diagnosed her independently.  The commander denied him 
the  opportunity  to  have  an  individual present  at  his  personal 
appearance before the commander. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Bio-Medical Science 
Corps, in the Reserve of the Air Force on 15 August 1994.  He was 
ordered to active duty on 25 October 1994. 
On  20  October  1995,  applicant was  notified  of  his  commander's 
intent  to  initiate  nonjudicial  punishment  action  against  him. 
Applicant was charged with misconduct in violation of: 

Article  93,  UCMJ,  in  that  you  did,  on  divers  occasions 
95  and  18  September  1995,  at  or  near 
maltreat  Senior Airman  K---  A---,  a 
ers, by making deliberate and repeated 

, 

offensive comments of a sexual nature.  On one occasion you told 
Senior Airman A---, a patient of yours, that you had gone to bed 
thinking about her and had a dream about her in the middle of the 
night.  Once you called her at her office and asked her to go to 
lunch with you.  On yet a different occasion you called her at 
her office and asked her how she could pay  for your services if 
she did not have any money to do so.  On a separate occasion you 
asked  Senior Airman  A--- to  come  to  your  office  on  Saturday, 
2 6   August  1 9 9 5 ,   to sign a document.  When she arrived, you told 
her she looked and smelled nice, asked her to turn around so you 
could look at her, asked her what  she was going to do sexually 
for  the  next  six  months  while  waiting  for  her  divorce  to  be 
finalized, asked her if she had a man lined up, then told her she 
was an attractive woman and asked her what she thought about you, 
and you finally asked her if she had seen a movie where a patient 
falls in love with her therapist.  After Senior Airman A--- left 
your office, you telephoned her at her home. 

Article 107: 

or about 22  September 1 9 9 5 ,   at or 
nea 
with intent to deceive, make to Lt 
tement, to wit:  that you had  not 
Col 
called Senior Airman A--- at home on-Saturday, 2 6   AugGst 1 9 9 5   and 
that your meeting with her on that date had  lasted only two to 
three minutes, which  statement was  totally false, and  was then 
known by you to be so false. 
Applicant  consulted a lawyer, waived his right to court-martial 
and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 1 5 .   Applicant 
submitted written material  and  also made  a personal  appearance 
before the commander.  On 8 November 1995,  the commander imposed 
nonjudicial  punishment  consisting  of  a  written  reprimand  and 
forfeiture of $ 9 0 0 . 0 0   pay per month for two months.  The Article 
1 5   action was filed in the applicant's Officer Selection Record 
and  Command  Selection Record.  On  14  November  1 9 9 5   applicant 
appealed  the  action  and  the  appeal  was  denied  on  30  November 
The  record was  found  legally  sufficient  on  21 December 
1 9 9 5 .  
1 9 9 5 .  
On 4 January 1 9 9 6 ,   applicant was notified by  his commander that 
involuntary  separation  action  was  being  initiated  against  him 
based  upon  his  serious  and  recurring misconduct  punishable  by 
military or civilian authorities.  Specifically, [the Article 1 5  
applicant  received on 8 November  1 9 9 5 1 .  
The commander advised 
the least favorable character of discharge was under other than 
honorable conditions.  Applicant, on 1 2   January 1 9 9 6 ,   indicated 
he  did  consult  with  counsel  and  that  he  fully understood  his 
rights and options regarding this action. 

On 4 January 1 9 9 6 ,   the 
Bomb Wing Acting Staff Judge Advocate, 
resented by  applicant's commander was 
stated that the evide 
legally  sufficient to  support  the  administrative  separation of 
applicant. 

z 

On  12  January  1996,  applicant  voluntarily  tendered  his 
resignation  from  the  U.  S. Air  Force  under  AFI  36-3207.  He 
stated he was voluntarily resigning instead of undergoing further 
action under AFI  36-3206 because he believed  it was in his best 
On  9  February  1996,  the  Headquarters  Air  Combat 
interest. 
Command Staff Judge Advocate found the case legally sufficient. 
Applicant's request for resignation in lieu of separation action 
was processed to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
(SAFPC) and  on  20  May  1996,  the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
accepted  the  applicant's resignation  and  directed  that  he  be 
issued an under honorable conditions (general) discharge from all 
appointments held in the U. S. Air Force. 

Applicant was discharged on 7 June 1996 under the provisions of 
AFI 36-3207,  (Misconduct -  Resignation Prior to Being Required to 
Show Cause for Retention on Active Duty, Commission of a Serious 
Military  or  Civilian  Offense)  with  a  general  under  honorable 
conditions discharge in the grade of first lieutenant.  He served 
1 year, 7 months and 13 days of active military service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division, Air  Force Legal 
Services  Agency,  AFLSA/JAJM,  states  that  Article  31 (b) I  UCMJ 
states in pertinent part:  "NO person subject to this chapter may 
interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person 
suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature 
of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make 
any statement  . . .and that any statement made by him may be used 
as  evidence  against  him."  The  sworn  statement  of  Lt  Colonel 
R- - - , which the applicant attached to his presentation, reflects 
that while her initial response was to  llinvestigate,'l she later 
recanted  that  statement  and  said  "NO, I  really  think  that  it 
would  be  more  appropriate  if  we  got  (the applicant  and  the 
subordinate) together with  (the subordinate's supervisor) in  a 
room.  We  did not  read anybody their rights because  this was a 
fact finding mission.  We had determined that if we could settle 
it at our level, we would.  That is what the IG would want us to 
do, before any kind of investigation took place, to settle it at 
our level."  Thus, during this meeting, the applicant was not "an 
accused or a person  suspected of  an offense,Il and  there was no 
requirement to advise the applicant of his rights under Article 
31. 
During the meeting, Major E---  (Chief , Mental Health Services) , 
suggested  that  Lt  Colonel  R- - -  contact  the  Communications 
Squadron to see if  they had  a record of  the phone calls.  The 
applicant had no reaction to the suggestion.  After the meeting, 
Lt Colonel R--- contacted the Communications Squadron to find out 
if any phone calls were made  from the applicant's extensions on 
26 August 1995.  When the Communications Squadron phoned her back 

3 

\ 

to  confirm  that  two  calls had  been  made  on  that  day  from  the 
applicant's extensions to the subordinate, Lt Colonel R---  stated 
"that to me confirmed about 50% of the subordinate's story right 
there."  She and Major E---  then called the applicant back  into 
her office and "confronted him with the numbers and he said that 
he had lied because he didn't think I could find that information  - 
out."  Lt Colonel R---  stated that she kept thinking to herself, 
"What else did you lie about?"  The only thing  I know is that 
with  those  phone  calls,  I  just  substantiated  50%  of  the 
subordinate's story.  What  makes  me  want  to  believe  that  the 
first 50% wasn't true as well.Il 
The applicant then became a suspect and was advised of his rights 
and was represented by legal counsel before being questioned. 

The applicant states in his  application that B/Gen Y---  denied 
him the opportunity to have an individual present at his Article 
15 presentation.  MCM Part V, 4C(1) (B) provides that the service 
member is entitled to "be accompanied by a spokesperson provided 
or arranged for by the member unless the punishment to be imposed 
will not exceed extra duty for 14 days, restriction for 14 days, 
an  oral  reprimand."  However,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the 
applicant  requested  to  have  anyone  present  during  the 
presentation. 
According  to  the  Barksdale  Legal  Office,  the 
applicant did bring his wife to the oral presentation but B/Gen 
Y---  requested that  she not  attend the presentation due  to the 
sensitive nature of  the  subject matter.  However, prior to the 
applicant's oral  presentation,  a  representative  from  the  legal 
office witnessed a conversation between the applicant's immediate 
supervisor, Major E- - -  and B/Gen Y---, wherein Major E---  "spoke 
in general terms that the applicant was a good guy."  Based upon 
these facts, they see no error in the procedures utilized in this 
case. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  commander  and  the  appellate 
authority were  anything but  neutral  and  objective.  It  is  the 
commander's discretion to determine if an offense was committed. 
While it is impossible to ascertain all matters considered by the 
commander or the weight and merit  he gave to the matters before 
him  it  is  clear  that  the  basic  elements  of  the  offense  are 
supported by the facts and applicant's actions were in violation 
of  Articles  93  and  107, UCMJ.  Clearly,  the  applicant  acted 
inappropriately.  He exercised poor judgment being in the office 
alone  with  a  client  on  a  weekend. 
He  was  also  less  than 
forthright  when  he  lied  to  a  superior  about  calling  his 
subordinate client at her home and about meeting with her on the 
weekend  for  only  two  to  three  minutes. 
The  commander  had 
sufficient facts before him to prove applicant's misconduct.  The 
appellate  authority  agreed. 
Neither  was  involved  in  the 
investigative process.  The  punishment  was  appropriate  to  the 
offense,  and  was  neither  overly  harsh  nor  unreasonable.  The 
Article  15  is  legally  sufficient.  There  are  no  legal  errors 
requiring  corrective  action.  The  relief  requested  should  be 
denied. 

4 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  states, in part, that  during review of  his case, the 
Air  Force  evaluation  completely  ignored  the  fact  that  the 
subordinate and her  spouse were  mental  health patients, with  a 
documented history of similar accusations against others in their 
unit,  including their  squadron  commander.  They  also  chose  to 
ignore  his  (applicant's) track  record  and  the  fact  that  the 
subordinate continued to seek his services exclusively for nearly 
two  months  after  services were  allegedly  out  of  order.  There 
were  a  few  other  facts  missing,  including  the  subordinate's 
letter  indicating  that  services  were  always  professional,  and 
that  she was completely  "comfortable with him  as the provider. I' 
The  appointed  chief  investigating  officer  interviewed  all 
parties, and concluded that "there was just nothing there." 

Applicant's response is attached at Exhibit E. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Personnel  Management  Specialist,  Separations  Branch,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPRP, states that the case has been reviewed for separation 
processing and there are no errors or irregularities causing an 
injustice to the applicant.  The discharge narrative reason of 
misconduct complies with AFI 36-3207.  Applicant did not identify 
any  specific errors  in the  discharge process nor provide  facts 
which warrant a change in his reason for discharge. 

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation is attached Exhibit 
F. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A.copy of  the additional Air  Force evaluation was  forwarded to 
the applicant on 22  June 1998 for review and response within .30 
days.  As  of  this date, no  response has been  received by  this 
off ice. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

5 

\ 

2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  Article  15,  dated 
8 November 1995,  should be  set  aside and  that  he  be  reimbursed 
$1,800.00 in pay  forfeitures.  His contentions are duly noted; 
however, we do not  find these assertions, in and by themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air Force.  Applicant's initial contention, and the statement in 
his  rebuttal  referring  to  the  "subordinate"  and  her  spouse's 
mental  health  status, were  also  noted.  Applicant  stated  that 
they  had  a  documented  history  of  similar  accusations  against 
others in their unit, including the Squadron Commander.  In our 
view, it would appear that if the applicant had knowledge of the 
subordinate's similar accusations against others, he  (applicant), 
in  his  professional  capacity,  would  have  requested  that  the 
subordinate be seen by someone other than himself to prevent him 
from being placed in that same position.  We therefore agree with 
the  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  conclude  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no 
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance;  and  that  the application will  only be  reconsidered 
upon  the  submission of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not 
considered with this application. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 2 5   August 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 .  

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member 

6 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 14 Jun 96. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Jul 96. 
Exhibit E.  Applicant's Letter, undated. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRP, dated 4 Jun 98. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jun 98. 

hk~n, a ~ J ~ C  

BARBARA A. WESTGA 
Panel Chair 

7 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRP 

550 C Street West Ste 11 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 13 

The applicant, while serving in the grade of first lieutenant, was separated fiom the Air Force 07 

Jun 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3207 (Ivhsconduct) with a general (under honorable 
conditions) discharge.  He served 01 year 07 months and  13 days total active service. 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting return of the $1,800 fine he paid as a result of 

nonjudicial punishment.  He further request the nonjudicial punishment be overturned. 

Basis for Request.  Applicant claims he requested permission to resign his commission after 

being falsely accused of UCMJ violation.  He states his application is being submitted to recti@ a 
gross injustice served by the Air Force.  Applicant has indicated that he does not desire 
reinstatement in the Air Force.  This advisory will address only the discharge processing in the 
case. 

Facts.  Applicant was notified by his commander on 4 Jan 96, that involuntary separation action 

had been initiated against him based upon his serious and recurring misconduct punishable by 
military or civilian authorities.  Specifically, applicant had been found guilty of maltreatment of a 
subordinate who was his patient, by making repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature. In 
addition, that he also made a false official statement to his commander.  For these actions, he 
received nonjudicial punishment on 8 Nov 95. 
The cowander advised the least favorable 
character of discharge that the Secretary of the Air Force may approved in his discharge case was 
under other than honorable conditions.  Applicant was advised an Area Defense Counsel had been 
appoicted for him who would discuss the procedures involved and his rights and options. 
Applicant was also advised he had the right to submit a statement of whether he wanted to 
comment or submit documentary evidence that he wanted considered in evaluating his case.  On 
12 Jan 96, applicant voluntarily submitted a letter requesting resignation instead of undergoing 
further separation action because he believed it to be in his best interest.  In an attachment to the 
letter he submitted, he claimed that he was convicted and punished for a crime that he absolutely 
did not commit.  The case was reviewed by major command legal and was found to be legally 
sufficient to continued processing for final action.  His request for resignation in lieu of separation 
action was processed to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) and on 20 
May 96, the Secretary of the Air Force accepted the applicant’s resignation and directed that he 
be issued an under honorable conditions (general) discharge from all appointments held in the 
United States Air Force. 

Discussion.  This case has been reviewed for separation processing and there are no errors or 
irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant.  The discharge narrative reason of misconduct 
complies with AFI 36-3207 and the type of separation is according to the directives in effect at 
the time of his discharge.  The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and 
appropriate action was taken. 

Recommendation.  Applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor 

provide facts which warrant a change in his reason for discharge.  He has filed a timely request. 

JOHN C. WOOTEN DAF 
Personnel Management Spcl 
Separations Branch 
Dir of Personnel Program Management 

DEPARTMENT OF THE  AIR  F O R C E  
AIR  FORCE  LEGAL  SERVICES  AGENCY  ( A F L S A )  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFLSNJAJM (Major Miller) 
112 Luke Avenue, Room 343 
Bolling AFB, DC 20332-8000 

- 

SUBJECT: 

14 JUN 

996 

Applicant’s Request:  In an application dated 22 March 1996, the applicant requests that the 

Article  15, UCMJ, nonjudicial punishment he received on 8 November 1995 be set aside.  The applicant 
also asked that he be reimbursed $1,800.00 in pay forfeitures. The applicant was on active duty in excess 
leave status at the time he filed his application. The application has been timely filed pursuant to 10 USC 
1552(b) and Detwiler v. Pena. 

u
ereinafter referred to as “the 

r

i

n

~

Facts of Military Justice Action:  This case came to light d

his 

Article 15 presentation. -d 
subordinate”), were directed to marital counseling.  The applicant was their assigned counselor.  The 
applicant individually counseled each of them after an initial joint session.  After the subordinate reported 
to her supervisor that the applicant made her uneasy, a ‘‘Letter of Clarification” was drafted for signature 
by bo-d 
subordinate at her residence and asked her to come to his office to sign the letter.  When she arrived at the 
applicant’s office, the applicant allegedly told her she smelled nice and asked her:  what her sexual plans 
were for the next six months while she waited for her divorce to be finalized; to turn around so he could 
look at her; if she had a man lined up; what she thought about the applicant; and if she had seen a movie 
where a patient falls in love with her therapist.  The subordinate stayed approximately one-half hour and 
returned home.  The applicant then called her again. 

the subordinate.  On Saturday, 26 August 1995, the applicant called the 

ventually stopped attending his therapy sessions with 

Article 15 for failing to attend the sessions.  During his Article 15 presentation, 
one of the reasons he quit the sessions was that the applicant was “making mov 

Whe 

the applicant’s commanders learned of the complaint, they agreed to 
meet and “clear the air” on the matter.  At the meeting, the applicant denied all of the allegations. The 
commanders did not advise the applicant of his rights before the applicant made the statements because 
they did not believe he had violated any laws.  After the meeting, base phone records were checked to verify 
the applicant’s assertions.  The review verified the allegations and at this point, a formal investigation of 
the appellant began.  The commander appointed an officer to investigate the matter.  Before the 
investigating officer interviewed the applicant, he advised the applicant of his rights and the applicant was 
provided legal representation.  During the interview, the applicant admitted to lying to his commander 
about calling the subordinate at home on 26 August 1995 but denied he made the alleged comments to her. 

On 20 October, 1995, applicant was notified of his commander’s intent to initiate nonjudicial 
punishment action against him.  The applicant was charged with misconduct in violation of Article 93, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), in that on divers occasions between about 24 July and 18 
September 1995, he maltreated a subordinate by making deliberate and repeated offensive comments of a 
sexual nature.  The applicant was also charged with misconduct in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, in that 

on or about 22 September 1995, he made a false official statement. The applicant submitted written 
materials for the commander to review and also made a personal appearance before the commander.  The 
applicant again admitted making a Mse official statement but continued to deny the maltreatment charge. 
After considering the information, the commander decided the applicant committed the alleged offenses. 
On 8 November 1995, the commander imposed nonjudicial punishment resulting in a written reprimand and 
forfeiture of $900.00 pay per month for two months.  The Article 15 action was filed in the applicant’s 
Officer HQ USAF Selection Record and Command Selection Record.  The applicant appealed both the 
Article 15 action and the inclusion of it in his Selection Record.  The appeal was denied. 

Applicant’s Contentions:  The applicant claims the nonjudic 

miscarriage of justice.”  While he admits to lying to his supervisor 

ent was a ‘%blatant 

e contends that it was 
arding the maltreatment charge and that the subordinate was lying. 
e applicant stated that he made an “error in judgment” while his 

UCMJ.  The applicant also alleges 
Certified Psychiatri 
applicant also allege 
personal appearance 
decision was reported to 
egal office lost all of the 
documents submitted on the applicant’s behalf.  The base legal office told the applicant to submit extras. 
The applicant is now afraid that “the reviewing authorities will decide [ills] fate without hearing b s ]  side.” 

his rights under Article 3 1, 
ignored the advice of a Board 
her independently.  The 

Discussion:  Article 3 l(b), UCMJ states in pertinent part:  ‘%Io person subject to this chapter may 

interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an ofense without first 
informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement 
. . , and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him.”  The sworn statement all(llD 

h the applicant attached to his presentation reflects that while her initial response was to 
later recanted that statement and said “No, I really think that it would be more 

appropriate if we got [the applicant and the subordinate] together with [the subordinate’s supervisor] . . . in 
a room.  . . . We did not read anybody their rights because this was a fact finding mission. . . . [Wle had 
determined that . . . if we could settle it at our level, we would.  That is what the IG would want us to do, 
before any kind of investigation tookpluce, to settle it at our level.”  (Emphasis added.)  Thus, during this 
meeting, the applicant was not “an accused or a person suspected of an offense,” and there was no 
requirement to advise the applicant of his rights under Art 3 1. 

of the phone calls.  The applicant had no reaction to the suggestion. 
tacted the Communications Squadron to find out if any phone calls 
26 August 1996. When the Communications Squadron 
been made on that day from the applicant’s extensions to the 
confirmed about 50% of [the subordinate’s] story right 

licant back into her office and “confronted 
’t think I could find that information out.” 

“What else did you lie about?’ . . . The only 

In his response to the Art  15, the applicant asserted that he was being “interrogated in a room of six people (five 

of harassing a white woman in the [ Slouth was a frightening feelin 
om statement indicates the applicant lied to her because he didn’t 

? #  Id 

hief, Mental Health Services, “seriously question[ed] the degree of  [the suborcl~nate’s] 
ed inappropriate comments when she brings in chocolate chip coolues for [the applicant] and 

view that this was not a “ho 
r facts contained in the record. 

his staff.” 

.  .

t 

.

 
that with those phone calls, I just substantiated 50% of [the subordinate’s] story.  What makes me want to 
believe that the first 50% wasn’t true as well.” 

The applicant then became a suspect and was advised of his rights and was represented by legal 

counsel before being questioned.  Subsequently, the applicant was served with nonjudicial punishment 
under Article 15.  Afhr consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily chose to proceed with his case 
under Article 15 rather than demand trial by court-martial. The applicant was also afforded an opportunity 
to present both written and oral presentations to his commander. 

The applicant states in his application 

enied h m  the opportunity to have an 
individual present at his Article 15 presentation.  MCM Part V, 14c(l)(B) provides that the service member 
is entitled to “[ble accompanied by a spokesperson provided or arranged for by the member unless the 

reprimand.”  However, ther 

duty for 14 days, restriction for 14 days, an oral 

that the applicant requested to have anyone present during the 
egal Office, the applicant did bring his wife to the oral 
that she not attend the presentation due to the sensitive nature 

licant’s oral presentation, a re 
n the applicant’s immediate supervisor, 
in general terms that [the applicant] w 

rocedures utilized in this case. 

There is no evidence that the command 

e appellate authority 
cretion to determine 

offense was committed. While it is impossible to ascertain all matters considered by the commander or the 
weight and merit he gave to the matters before hun, it is clear that the basic elements of the offense are 
supported by the facts and applicant’s actions were in violation of Articles 93 and 107, UCMJ.  Clearly, 
the applicant acted inappropriately. He exercised poor judgment being in the office alone with a client on a 
weekend.  He was also less than forthright when he lied to a superior about calling his subordinate client at 
her home and about meeting with her on the weekend for only two to three minutes. The commander had 
sufficient facts before him to prove applicant’s misconduct.  The appellate authority agreed.  Neither was 
involved in the investigative process.  The punishment was appropriate to the offense, and was neither 
overly harsh nor unreasonable.  The applicant’s nonjudicial punishment was properly accomplished and the 
applicant was afforded all rights granted by statute and regulation.  The Article 15 is legally sufficient. 

Lastly, there is no merit to the applicant’s allegation that “the reviewing authorities will decide 

fis] fate without hearing fis] side.”  There is no indication he did not have copies of the lost documents, 
or that these materials were not submitted in support of the subject application. We find no merit in this 
assertion. 

Recommendation: After a review of the available records, I conclude administrative relief by this 

office is not possible or appropriate.  There are no legal errors requiring corrective action.  I recommend 
the Board deny the relief requested. 

LOREN S .  PERLSTEIN 
Associate Chief, Military Justice Division 
Air Force Legal Services Agency