RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03217

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES



APPLICANT REQUESTS 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.


APPLICANT 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.  Important 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  In sum, the LOR is fatally defective and should be  withdrawn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 XXX, which is absolutely  essential  to  understanding
what happened.  He never addressed any communication to Capt XXX  as  "Dear"
or "My Dear" or anything of the kind, nor did  he  close  any  communication
with "Love, XXX!" "Love,  XXXX!"  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 XXXX.

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:

        PERIOD ENDING             OVERALL EVALUATION

           8 May 87                     1-1-1
           8 Jan 88 w/LOE               1-1-1
           1 Jul 88                     1-1-1
           1 Jul 89              Meets Standards (MS)
           1 Jul 90                       MS
          31 Mar 91                       MS
          31 Mar 92                       MS
          15 Aug 92                       MS
          22 Jun 94                       MS
          10 Apr 95                       MS
          21 Mar 96                       MS
        * 21 Mar 97                       MS
          22 Sep 97 (Referral)     MS on all factors
                                   except Leadership Skills,
                 Professional Qualities,
                 and Judgement and Decisions

* Top report reviewed by the CY97B Col Board.




AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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 XXXX  may  have  been  well
intentioned, it was nonetheless “unduly familiar" and  unprofessional."  The
evidence is not merely sufficient,  it  is  overwhelming.   The  applicant's
undue familiarity with Captain XXXX, 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 XXX, 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 “unprofessional" relationship concerning an Air  Force  officer,  is  one
which detracts from that officer's 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 XXXXX.  Administrative actions (such as an  LOR),  must
not be “arbitrary 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 "fostering an  unprofessional  relationship  with  a
subordinate"  for  “favoritism"  and  for  “creating   the   appearance   of
favoritism," is supported by  substantial  evidence."  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  XXXX
went  far  beyond  the  normal  boundaries  of  a  superior  -   subordinate
relationship.  Most of the applicant's staff, including Captain XXXX,"  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 REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

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 XXXX 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 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 XXXX 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 "favoritism" 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
XXXX's revised OPR and all other OPRs he subsequently  wrote  reflected  the
less flowery, more fact-packed  philosophy  desired  by  the  Wing  leaders.
Also, the revised version of Capt XXXX 's 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  XXXX  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  XXXX  to
initiate the false allegations against him.  The miraculous healing of  Capt
XXXX was a very  emotional  turning  point  that  deeply  affected  everyone
involved.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.


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.  Having carefully  considered  all
the evidence in this  case,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant’s
commander’s decision to give him 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 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 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


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




             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                  Panel Chair