AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

.' 

, 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03217 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

-E% 7  9  19.99 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1. The Letter of Reprimand  (LOR), dated 23 July 1997, be declared 
void and removed from his records. 
2, The  Unfavorable  Information File  (UIF) the  LOR  generated be 
removed , 
3  The Officer Performance Report  (OPR) rendered for the period 
22  March  1997  through  22  September  1997,  be  removed  from  his 
records. 
4. The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  prepared  for  the 
Calendar Year 1997B  (CY97B) Central Colonel Selection Board, be 
removed from his records, 

PPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The LOR contains multiple serious errors, misstatements of fact, 
and crucial omissions. 
The applicant  states that  key evidence was  lost, intentionally 
excluded  from  consideration,  or  disregarded. 
Import ant 
conclusions are unsupported by  the  facts.  In sum, the  LOR  is 
fatally defective and should be withdrawn in its entirety.  The 
evidence conclusively disproves every allegation in the LOR.  In 
addition, the  process was  unfair  and  unjust,  including use  of 
conflicting  legal  advice  and  premature  cancellation  of  his 
Permanent Change of Station (PCS) assignment before he could even 
respond. 
The applicant states the LOR totally ignores the religious aspect 
of his association with Capt B---, which is absolutely essential 
to  understanding  what  happened. 
He  never  addressed  any 
communication to Capt B---  as ltDearll o r   IlMy  Dear" or anything of 
the kind, nor did he close any communication with  IILove, John!" 
'ILove, John K!I1  or  anything  similar, until  after  this  healing 
blessing.  He  is  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  of 
Latter-day Saints, the LDS  (Mormon) Church, and holds  the Holy 
Melchizedek Priesthood within the LDS Church, and the office of 

* ?  

High Priest within the Melchizedek  Priesthood.  Simply put, the 
Priesthood is the power of men to act on behalf of God on earth,? 
under proper authority.  Priesthood holders can baptize, confirm, 
bless the Sacrament (communion), and administer healing blessings 
on  the  sick  and  afflicted.  Sometimes, by  God's power,  truly 
miraculous  healings  result. 
That  is  what  happened  when  he 
blessed Capt B---. 
The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
On 23 July 1997, the applicant, a lieutenant colonel, received an 
LOR  from  his  commander  for  fostering  an  unprofessional 
relationship with a subordinate for favoritism, and for creating 
the appearance of  favoritism.  He also received a referral OPR 
and a "Do Not Promote" recommendation on the PRF prepared for the 
CY97B  board.  In  addition, Section  IV  of  the  PRF  contains  a 
reference to the fact that the applicant was formally reprimanded 
for  the  unprofessional  relationship  with  a  subordinate  junior 
officer . 
The  applicant  was  subsequently  considered  below-the-promotion- 
zone  (BPZ)  and not  selected for promotion by  the CY97B  Central 
Colonel Selection Board. 

A  resume of applicant's OPRs since 1987 is as follows: - 

8 May 87 
8 Jan 88 w/LOE 
1 Jul 88 
1 Jul 89 
1 Jul 90 
31 Mar 91 
31 Mar 92 
15 Aug 92 
22 Jun 94 
10 Apr 95 
21 Mar 96 
*  21 Mar 97 
22 Sep 97 (Referral) 

Meets Standards (MS) 

L EVALUATION 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

MS on all factors 
except Leadership Skills, 
Professional Qualities, 
and Judgement and Decisions 

*  Top report reviewed by the CY97B Col Board. 

2 

) '  

. 

IR FORCE EV ALUATION : 
The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation  &  Recognition  Division, 
AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and notes that in February 
1996, the Chief of Staff initiated a new policy which states that 
LORs  are  considered  in  the  evaluation  process  for  Promotion 
Recommendation Forms  (PRFs), filed in officer selection records 
(OSRs) (at the commander's discretion), and that establishment of 
an unfavorable information file (UIF) is mandatory-  The LOR  will 
remain in the UIF for four years or for one PCS, plus one year, 
whichever is later, 
AFPC/DPPPA states that if the applicant believes his next OPR or 
PRF has been adversely affected by the LOR,  then he may submit an 
appeal once either of these documents has been made a matter of 
record.  They stress that in order to successfully challenge the 
validity of a performance report, it  is imperative to hear from 
all of  the evaluators concerned  -  not  necessarily  for support, 
but at least for clarification/explanation.  If he is successful 
in  obtaining  these  statements, then he  must  submit his  appeal 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2401. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C , 
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA  reviewed this application and 
states that although the applicant's conduct towards Captain B--- 
may  have  been  well  intentioned,  it  was  nonetheless  \\unduly 
familiarrr and  unprofessional. It 
The  evidence  is  not  merely 
sufficient ,  it  is  overwhelming. 
The  applicant I  s  undue 
familiarity with  Captain  B---,  as well  as  other  subordinates, 
created favoritism and/or the appearance of favoritism and caused 
derision and mistrust amongst his staff.  The applicant's seeming 
patriarchal  desire  to  be  involved  in  the  personal  lives  of 
selected  staff  members,  specifically,  Captain  B---,  detracted 
from his ability to impartially manage his duties and undermined 
his authority as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force and as the 
50th Space Wing Staff Judge Advocate.  His naive and sophomoric 
demonstrations of  'love"  and  "friendship" for his  subordinates 
went  well beyond  acceptable personal behavior between superiors 
and subordinates, 
AFPC/JA notes that the applicant points out that  "unprofessional 
relationships" are defined by paragraph 2.2 of AFI 36-2909.  They 
note  that  an  \\unprofessionalI1 relationship  concerning  an  Air 
Force  officer,  is  one  which  detracts  from  that  officerls 
authority as a superior, or results in or reasonably creates the 
appearance of, favoritism, misuse of office or position, or the 
abandonment  of  organizational  goals  for  personal  interests. 
Paragraph 2.2  of  AFI  36-2909.  There  is little doubt  in their 
minds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the opinion 
that  the  applicant  not  only  fostered, but  pursued  a personal 
relationship  with  a  subordinate,  Captain  Cynthia  B---. 
Administrative actions  (such as an LOR), must  not be  "arbitrary 

3 

and  capricious" and  need be  supported by  substantial evidence . 
Accordingly, they believe the decision to offer the applicant an' 
LOR on 23 July 1997 for Iffostering an unprofessional relationship 
with  a  subordinate"  for  "favoritismv1 and  f o r   "creating  the 
appearance of favoritism,11 is supported by substantial evidence.Il 
In their view, the applicant should feel most  fortunate that his 
actions did not result in more severe administrative or punitive 
action; indeed, the  LOR  represented the minimal  redress of  the 
applicant's behavior in view of his rank and position as a Staff 
Judge Advocate.  The evidence of record illustrates the type of 
preventable  career-threatening and  mission  denigrating  turmoil 
that can occur as the result of an unduly familiar relationship 
between a military superior and his or her subordinates.  It is 
apparent from reading the statements of all persons involved that 
no  one  attributes  any  malicious  or  nefarious  intent  to  the 
applicant's conduct.  To the contrary, most  found the applicant 
to  be  a  caring  and  compassionate man,  to  a  fault.  However, 
almost  all also agreed  that  his  relationship with  Captain B--- 
went far beyond the normal boundaries of a superior -  subordinate 
relationship.  Most  of  the applicant's staff, including Captain 
B--- , 1'  also  believed  that  he  treated  her  differently  (better) 
than others.  What  is especially troublesome about this case is 
the  fact  the  applicant  apparently does  not  recognize  the  true 
nature  of  what  he  has  done.  It  is  their  opinion, that  all 
relevant  administrative  procedures  were  substantially  followed 
and that the commander's decision to give the applicant an LOR 
was  proper  and  supported  by  substantial  evidence.  Therefore, 
they recommend denial of his request. 

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

APPLICANT'S RE VIEW OF AIR FORCE  E VALUATION: 
The applicant  reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and  states the 
following: 

a.  The  advisory  opinion  and  the  LOR  adopt  the  hearsay 
allegations made by  Capt  B---  without  even mentioning the  fact 
that at least five of her colleagues testified that they consider 
her  a  manipulative,  dishonest  liar,  that  she  was  under  the 
influence  of  multiple  powerful  mind  and  mood-altering  drugs 
throughout  the  key  period  of  time, and  that  she  consistently 
refused  to  answer  even  one  question  from  him  or  his  defense 
counsel . 

b.  The advisory opinion and the LOR ignore the fact that 
10  out  of  12  members  of  his  office  swore  that  there  was  no 
unprofessional  relationship  and  no  favoritism  whatsoever,  nor 
even  any  appearance  thereof.  On  the  contrary,  10  out  of  12 
members of his office testified that he was an outstanding, fair- 
minded, compassionate leader.  His two Wing Commanders at Falcon 

4 

a 

AFB  who had time to get to know him, consider him the greatest 
judge advocate they have ever known. 

c.  The advisory opinion and the LOR  narrowly focus on one 
or  two  instances  in  which  he  treated  Capt  B---  well,  while 
totally ignoring the massive evidence that he treated his other 
three officers at  least as well  if  not  better.  No  reasonable 
definition  of 
can  possibly  apply  to  such  a 
situation, yet this seemingly obvious point is utterly ignored. 

d.  The advisory opinion and the LOR completely disregard 
the evidence that he  handled all officer OPRs  fairly, and that 
after Wing policy on OPR  content finally became available in June 
1997,  both  Capt  B--- Is  revised  OPR  and  all  other  O P R s   he 
subsequently wrote  reflected the  less flowery, more  fact-packed 
philosophy  desired  by  the  Wing  leaders.  Also,  the  revised 
version  of  Capt  B---Is OPR  was  comparable  in  strength to  the 
initial draft, and there was absolutely no downgrading, nor any 
even remotely possible motive on his part to do so. 

e.  The applicable instruction, AFI  36-2909,  in paragraph 
8, mandates that issues of unprofessional relationships are to be 
addressed informally, at the lowest possible level, and only if 
that  fails  to  correct  the  problem  is  any  more  formal  action 
called  for.  However, his  case  was  handled, by  a  staff  judge 
advocate with multiple extremely severe conflicts of interest, as 
if  he  had  been previously counseled by  his Commander to change 
his behavior, and did not. 

f  The  advisory  opinion  and  the  LOR  either  disregard  or 
dismiss key evidence as to his religious beliefs and the healing 
blessing he bestowed on the critically ill Capt B--- to help save 
her  life when  she was  diagnosed  with  a  life-threatening brain 
tumor.  This evidence is utterly central to an understanding of 
the  situation  that  brought  Capt  B---  to  initiate  the  false 
allegations against him.  The miraculous healing of Capt B--- was 
a  very  emotional  turning  point  that  deeply  affected  everyone 
involved. 
The applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F. 

The applicant has exhausted a11 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.  Having 
carefully considered all the evidence in this case, we  are not 
persuaded that the applicant's  commander's  decision to give him 

5 

an  LOR  for  fostering  an  unprofessional  relationship  with  a 
subordinate, for favoritism, and for creating the appearance of' 
favoritism  constituted  either  an  error  or  an  abuse  of  his 
discretion.  Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the 
AFPC/SJA  and  adopt  its  rationale  for  our  conclusion that  the 
applicant has  failed to sustain his burden of establishing the 
existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable 
action on his requests. 
4 .   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  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

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 10 November  1998,  under the provisions of 
AFI 

- 

36-2603 : 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G .   Diamond, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote) 

The 

following documentary evidence was considered: 
Exhibit A .   DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, 
Exhibit D.  Letter, 
Exhibit E.  Letter, 
Exhibit F.  Letter, 

AFPC/DPPPA, dated 1 Dec 97. 
AFPC/JA, dated 4 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 98. 
Applicant, dated 4 Mar 98, w/atch. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY  () 
Panel Chair 

6