AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FEE3 2 4 1999
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00819
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be retired in the grade of captain versus first lieutenant
(1Lt)
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission,
which is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the period in question, applicant was a captain (Date of
Rank: 5 Aug 87) assigned as the commander of Detachment 6,
Buckley Air National Guard Base, CO. He was the only officer at
the Detachment.
According to an AFOSI Report of Investigation (ROI) dated 17 June
1994, witnesses disclosed that during a party hosted by the
applicant on 21 May 1994, he was highly intoxicated and the party
!!got out of hand." During this party, as well as an earlier one,
he committed, or attempted to commit, several inappropriate acts
with female dependent spouses, particularly while in a hot tub.
During witness interviews, admissions were made by a female
dependent spouse that she did have consensual sexual intercourse
with applicant on 21 May 1994. Applicant admitted to having
sexual intercourse with the same dependent spouse but that the
other incidents were initiated by the female dependent spouses.
Applicant was subsequently reprimanded and required to forfeit
$1,000 of pay pursuant to Article 15 imposition on 28 July 1994
f o r the offenses of indecent assault and adultery. Applicant did
not appeal the punishment. He submitted an application for
retirement which prompted an officer grade determination.
The Air Force Personnel Board considered applicant's case on
19 December 1994 and found that he had Ilcommitted not just one
indiscretion, but a whole series of acts which are
extraordinarily destructive to the unity of effort every military
organization must nurture in order to be effective." In the
board's view, the applicant abandoned his rank, if not his very
status as an officer, and should deem himself fortunate to be
allowed to retire at all, much less to be retired in his current
grade. Accordingly, the board unanimously resolved to retire him
in the lower rank of 1Lt.
On 2 March 1995, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) , through
the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards, determined the applicant
did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of captain and directed
he be retired as a 1Lt.
Applicant was retired in the grade of 1Lt on 1 April 1995 with 23
years, 3 months and 4 days of active service, the last 11 years
as a commissioned officer.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, reviewed this
appeal and states that the procedures to present the officer
grade determination package to the SAF Personnel Council were
proper and no errors or injustices took place. Therefore, denial
is recommend.
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
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 to
warrant retiring the applicant in the grade of captain.
Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find
these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive
to overcome the substantial evidence of his grave misconduct.
Applicant has provided no persuasive documentation that the
2
98-00819
officer grade determination process was in error, nor has he
demonstrated that the Air Force Personnel Board's recommendation
and the SAFIs decision to retire him in the lower grade was
unjust and not soundly based on the evidence of record. The
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered
either an error or an injustice. Therefore, in view of the above
and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a
personal appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not
have materially added to that understanding. Theref ore , the
request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
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 3 December 1 9 9 8 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 1 4 9 , dated 1 9 Mar 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 16 Apr 9 8 .
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 May 9 8 .
BARBARA A. WESTGATEU
Panel Chair
3
9 8 - 0 0 8 1 9
Evidently, the decision was not to set aside the Article 15. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and takes offense with the Air Force’s opinion that he did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of master sergeant. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02411
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02411 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: GEORGE E. DAY HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 23 Jul 96 and imposed on 26 Jul 96 be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02411 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: GEORGE E. DAY HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 23 Jul 96 and imposed on 26 Jul 96 be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02770
However, on 9 Feb 00, the group commander decided not to file the LOR in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR). On 12 May 00, the rater informed the applicant that his promotion to lieutenant colonel was delayed pending the outcome of the ongoing AFOSI investigation regarding allegations of fraternization, unprofessional conduct, providing alcohol to minors, obstruction of justice, and making false official statements. The applicant provided a rebuttal dated 30 Jun 00, claiming in...
In accordance with his rights under Article 15, UCMJ and AFI 51-202, applicant requested through his military counsel, to review all the evidence that the commander considered in deciding whether to impose the non-judicial punishment. If he was provided a review of the complete investigation, he and his attorneys would have been able to provide specific credible rebuttal to the specific allegations of misconduct, that ultimately boiled down to a “solicitation.” Regulations have not been...
In accordance with his rights under Article 15, UCMJ and AFI 51-202, applicant requested through his military counsel, to review all the evidence that the commander considered in deciding whether to impose the non-judicial punishment. If he was provided a review of the complete investigation, he and his attorneys would have been able to provide specific credible rebuttal to the specific allegations of misconduct, that ultimately boiled down to a “solicitation.” Regulations have not been...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03089
The Secretary of the Air Force determined the applicant did not serve honorably in the grade of lieutenant colonel because of the applicant’s unprofessional relationship. The applicant does not question the punishment imposed by his commander; he does, however, assert that the consequences of the nonjudicial punishment was excessive. Ms. Maust voted to grant the applicant's request and elected to submit a minority report which is attached at Exhibit G. The following documentary evidence...
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. In regard to the merits of the applicant’s requests, AF/JAG states that first, they recommend the application be denied as untimely. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an out-of-court settlement agreement to be used as evidence the applicant was not fairly...
HQ AFPC/JA informally advised the AFBCMR Staff that unless the divorced party can prove, either in a court of the country in which the divorce was obtained or in a United States court, that the foreign divorce was not in compliance with the laws of the foreign country, the divorce cannot be voided. If legally married to the decedent at the time the POA was issued, the applicant should have been entitled to a dependent ID card. The Chief advises that, should the Board grant relief, approval...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017702
Counsel requests removal of the DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)), dated 28 April 2005, from the restricted section of the applicant's official military personnel file (OMPF). Counsel provides: * multiple DA Forms 2823 (Sworn Statement) * appointment of investigating officer (IO) memorandum * DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers) * legal review of Army Regulation 15-6 (Procedures of...