AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET'NUMBER:  97- 00288 
COUNSEL:  GARY R. MYERS 

HEARING DESIRED: YES 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1. The  narrative  reason  for  separation  be  changed  to 
I'Secretarial  Authoritytt rather  than  tlMisconducttt and  the 
separation  code  be  changed  to  a  code  reflecting  secretarial 
authority. 
2. The 19 October 1995 show cause board finding recommending his 
separation be  set  aside  and  recoupment  of  the  pilot  bonus  be 
voided. 
3 .   He be reinstated on active duty with back pay and allowances 
and with  credit  for time  in service for all purposes  from the 
date of separation to the date of reinstatement. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or 
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at 
Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the  applicant's military  records, are  contained  in  the  letter 
prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air  Force. 
Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this 
Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Prggram and Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRP, states that 
this case has been reviewed for separation processing and there 
are  no, errors  or  irregularities  causing  an  injustice  to  the 
applicant.  The discharge complies with directives in effect at 

97-00288 

the time of his discharge and his reason for discharge is correct 
according  to  DOD  and  Air  Force  Instructions. 
The  records 
indicate member's military  service was reviewed and appropriate 
action was  taken.  Applicant  has  submitted no  information for 
consideration that was not  or could not have been presented  on 
his  behalf  during his  Board  of  Inquiry  (BOI) or his discharge 
processing.  Applicant  did not  identify any  specific errors in 
the discharge processing nor provide facts which warrant a change 
in the reason for separation or a change in the separation code. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and 
states the applicant's only specific claim of error or injustice 
is that the BO1 that recommended his discharge was subjected to 
command influence as a result of his wing commander, a brigadier 
general,  testifying before  the  board.  This  claim  is  totally 
without  merit.  Commanders who  initiate adverse  administrative 
actions  often  testify  at  board  proceedings  arising  out  of 
decisions  to  process  personnel  for  administrative  separations. 
Aside  from  the  specific  allegation  of  command  influence, 
counsel's  argument  in  support  of  this  application  follows  a 
common theme:  applicant's military  record  outweighed  this one 
course  of  misconduct,  and  he  should  not  therefore  have  been 
discharged.  They note that applicant was discharged for serious 
and  recurring  misconduct  punishable  by  military  or  civilian 
authorities.  The maximum punishment for adultery under the UCMJ 
is  dismissal,  forfeiture  of  all  pay  and  allowances,  and 
confinement  for  one  year.  Therefore, the  offense  is  clearly 
serious.  This affair lasted several months, and it was therefore 
recurring.  Thus, the applicant was legally subject to discharge. 
Whether involuntary discharge would be  initiated was a decision 
for the applicant's commander -  a decision clearly supported by 
the evidence of record.  In his testimony before the board, the 
applicant's  commander  stated  on  several  occasions  that  the 
applicant's record had been considered in making the decision to 
initiate  discharge  action.  AFI  36-3206,  paragraph  4.37.2.1, 
states,  in  part:  ''If the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  directs 
involuntary  separation  for  any  reason  in  chapter  ... 3,  the 
officer is subject to recoupment of a portion of  . . . bonus money 
received." 
Absent  granting  applicant's  requested  relief  to 
return him  to active  duty which  might  result  in his  return to 
flying status and void recoupment, it is their opinion that this 
Board  is  without  authority  to  forgive  indebtedness  (or order 
repayment of any moneys recouped).  The only exception would be 
if  the  Board  found  an  error  or  injustice  in  the  applicant's 
record, the correction of which would have the result of setting 
aside the basis for the debt.  This could only happen here if the 
applicant  were  returned  to  active  duty  and  flying  status. 
Finally, the ,applicant  requests that  the  reason for separation 
and accompanying separation code on his DD Form 214  be  changed 
from 'l&isconductl' to ''Secretarial Authority.  He does not allege 
any error in the form, but believes that the separation authority 

97-00288 

should  be  changed  since  the  basis  for  his  discharge  was  one 
incident  over  a  thirteen  year  career. 
Applicant  confuses 
"Character of Service" with  "Separation Authority. It  His DD Form 
214 clearly reflects his Tharacter of Service" during his career 
as  "Honorable. It 
It  also  accurately  reflects  his  "Narrative 
Reason for Separation" as tlMisconduct.ii To change it would be to 
introduce error into his record.  It  is their opinion that the 
application should be  denied.  Applicant  has  failed to present 
relevant evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 28 April 1997, for review and response.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting  favorable  action  on  the  applicant's request  to  set 
aside the show cause board  findings; payment of  the pilot bonus 
and reinstatement in the Air Force with back pay and allowance. 
The applicant's contention that the show cause board was tainted 
by  command  influence  is  noted;  however,  other  than  his  own 
statement,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide  sufficient 
evidence  to  substantiate  that  his  commander  influenced  the 
outcome  of  the  Board  of  Inquiry  in  any  way. 
The  comments 
concerning this allegation have been addressed by the Staff Judge 
Advocate and we agree with their recommendation.  Therefore, in 
the absence of  evidence to the  contrary, we  find no basis upon 
which to recommend favorable action on these requests. 
4.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  in 
regard to the reason for the applicant's separation.  While we do 
not  condone  applicant ' s   behavior,  the  majority  of  the  Board 
believes that in view of his over 13 years of outstanding service 
in the Air Force and since it appears that he was having marital 

difficulties at the time the offenses were committed, the reason 
for his  separation should be  changed to  IISecretarial Authorityii 
as a matter of clemency.  Therefore, the majority recommends the 
applicant's records be corrected to the extent indicated below. 

97-00288 

t 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  on  25  April 
1996,  he  was  discharged  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3207 
IISecretarial  Authorityll  and  issued  a  Separation  Program 
Designator of IIKFF. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on 4 September 1997,  under  the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair 
Mr. Walter J. Hosey, Member 
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member 

The Board  recommended denial of  applicant's requests pertaining 
to  setting aside the  show cause board  findings; payment  of  the 
pilot bonus and reinstatement in the Air Force with back pay and 
allowance.  By  a majority  vote, the  Board  recommended granting 
applicant's request to change the reason for his  separation to 
Vecretarial  Authority.lI  Mr.  Hosey  voted  to  deny  applicant's 
request pertaining to the narrative reason but does not desire to 
submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was 
considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 4 Apr 97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Apr 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 97. 

OSCAR A. GOLDFARB 
Panel Chair 

i 

4 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AF’BCMR 97-00288 

JUC  3 1 898: 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

I of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

Designator of “KFF.” 

cords of the Department of the Air Force relating 
corrected to show that on 25 April 1996, he was 
“Secretarial Authority” and issued a Separation Program 

- 

Air Force Review Boards Agency