RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03062
            INDEX CODE:  110.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated onto active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During a Board of Inquiry (BOI), which was convened on 2  Jun  99,  his  ex-
wife, the government’s key witness, testified falsely under  oath  and  made
many false  allegations  that  influenced  the  BOI  in  their  decision  to
discharge him after serving over 18 years of active duty  service.   At  the
time of his discharge, he was embroiled in a bitter divorce.   Every  reason
the military presented  at  his  BOI  was  related  to  his  failed  marital
relationship and not to his duty performance.  His legal  counsel  requested
an investigation be conducted regarding his ex-wife’s testimony,  which  was
apparently  ignored.   He  submitted  evidence  from  a  certified  forensic
handwriting analyst that confirmed his ex-wife provided false testimony  and
committed perjury.  His  counsel  submitted  a  request  for  the  board  to
reverse its decision or reconvene.  He never received a  response  or  reply
and the evidence was ignored.

The  statement  of  reasons   initiated   at   the   commencement   of   his
administrative discharge proceedings, was changed  several  times.   He  was
the subject of false allegations  of  missed  child  support  payments.   He
provided  evidence  to  the  contrary  and  requested  termination  of   his
discharge proceedings.   After  he  was  told  by  his  commander  that  the
additional issues being addressed  were  not  career  ending,  he  plead  no
contest.  Another statement of  reasons  was  issued  deleting  the  initial
reason for the BOI.  During the BOI, the statement of  reasons  was  changed
again, despite the objections of his counsel.  He does not believe that  the
BOI considered the impact of an administrative discharge after 18  years  of
service, as required by AFI 36-3207, and  the  resulting  financial/economic
hardships.  His ex-wife falsely  stated  in  civil  court  that  she  didn’t
realize and that she was never informed that the BOI was a  discharge  board
when she testified.  She had full intention of destroying his career out  of
her anger and vindictiveness.

The Judge Advocate  General  (JAG)  attorney  acted  improperly  during  his
investigation.  To illicit testimony from his  11  year  old  son,  he  made
trips to his sons residence, gave him rides in his convertible,  a  tour  of
the court room, and invited his son to the legal office on  his  career  day
at school, in spite of his objections.  He made several requests for a  copy
of the Board  of  Review  (BOR)  transcripts  from  the  National  Personnel
Records Center (NPRC) and was told that there was no record of a BOR in  his
records.

In support of his request  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement;  his
temporary  divorce  order;  documents  associated  with  his   request   for
investigation into his ex-wife’s testimony and request to convene  the  BOR;
his discharge directive; initial and amended  statements  of  reason;  child
support court order; AFPC/DPCTD employment letter;  his  divorce  attorney’s
letter; character reference; NPRC response to his request for copies of  his
BOR; correspondence from his Senator’s office; and, his  Officer  Evaluation
Reports rendered between 6 January 1991 and 31 January 1998.   His  complete
submission is appended at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After serving 7 years, 9 months, and 27 days as an enlisted  member  in  the
Regular Air Force, applicant was appointed a second lieutenant,  Reserve  of
the Air Force on 27 Jan 89 and voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty
on that same date.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on  29  Feb
96 and was progressively promoted to the grade  of  captain  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 27 Jan 93.

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:

AFPC/JA reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  JA states  that
a BOI heard evidence from a civilian police officer,  applicant's  estranged
spouse, his son, members of his squadron, and the applicant.  The BOI saw  a
videotape of severe damage to the applicant's home,  heard  and  reviewed  a
transcript of an audio tape recorded by applicant's  son  which  illustrated
that applicant screamed, used extremely foul language,  and  threatened  his
family verbally and with a weapon during a 19 Feb 98 incident, which led  to
his arrest, incarceration and conviction of aggravated assault.  Members  of
his unit testified to his excellent duty performance and  their  willingness
to continue to serve with him.  Although  applicant  disputed  some  of  the
events, he  acknowledged  excessive  alcohol  abuse  and  causing  extensive
damage to his home.  He also  acknowledged  instances  of  limited  violence
toward his son, including a December 1996 incident during  which  he  pulled
the phone from his son who was calling the police.

The BOI found that applicant had violated the  conditions  of  his  criminal
bond and "no contact" orders and  was  incarcerated;  he  became  "violently
agitated" on 19 Feb 98, shouted obscenities and insults at  his  spouse  and
son, knocked a hole in the wall, broke a mirror,  flicked  a  burning  cigar
into his son's head, and loaded a magazine  in  his  .45  caliber  revolver,
which resulted in his incarceration, "no contest" plea  and  conviction  for
aggravated assault; in March 1997 he was cited  for  disorderly  conduct  by
the Derby, KS police; in December 1996,  he  became  intoxicated,  loud  and
violent in the presence of his  own  and  other  children,  shouted  at  his
spouse and threw items around the house, pulled a cordless  phone  from  his
son's hand and pushed him, resulting in  minor  injury,  again  causing  the
xxxxx police to arrest  and  incarcerate  him  for  battery  and  disorderly
conduct; and, in January 1992 during a marital dispute, he kicked in a  door
at his home causing the base police to detain him.  As  a  result  of  these
findings  the  BOI  recommended  an  under  honorable  conditions  (general)
discharge.  On 21 Oct 99, the Secretary of  the  Air  Force  concurred  with
that recommendation.

The applicant's claim that his wife  forged  his  signature  on  a  line  of
credit application is nearly irrelevant.  The theme of  applicant's  defense
is that his marriage was the root cause of the misconduct.  His  spouse  may
have been partly responsible for the marital  tension,  but  that  does  not
excuse his misconduct, it  only  reinforces  his  long-term  intentional  or
discreditable mismanagement of personal affairs, which  was  the  basis  for
discharge.

Applicant's contention that  the  government  changed  his  reason  for  the
discharge is equally unavailing.  The removal  of  the  allegation  that  he
failed to make timely child support payments is  authorized  under  AFI  36-
3206 and proper procedure was followed.  There is no evidence that  the  BOI
changed the statement of reasons nor was  there  any  impropriety  with  the
BOI's  handling  of  the  statement  of  reasons   or   the   Findings   and
Recommendations  Worksheet.   The  BOI  was  instructed  on   the   economic
consequences of its actions on applicant  and  there  is  no  evidence  that
those instructions were disregarded.  The instances of  alleged  impropriety
by the government representative in dealing with applicant's  son  were  not
truly improper; nor did applicant present evidence of these  allegations  to
allow further review.  That the NPRC has no record of the BOI is  irrelevant
to consideration of a grant of relief (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that he requested a copy of his BOR from the  NPRC,  not
a copy of his BOI and he questions whether a BOR  ever  convened.   This  is
not irrelevant.  The fact that his ex-wife committed forgery,  then  perjury
under oath is not irrelevant.  The point is, as the key witness she lied  or
grossly exaggerated during all aspects of her testimony.   This  information
was submitted to all reviewing authorities but  was  totally  ignored.   The
government did not follow through with proper procedure.  He has  discovered
that his ex-wife had a long-standing and currently  continuing  affair  with
another officer at xxxxx, which  directly  contributed  to  this  situation.
She is currently under investigation by her commander.  It is  obvious  that
from her testimony, she wanted him discharged at any cost to meet her ends.

In further support of  his  request  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  email
communications between  him  and  his  ex-wife's  commander.   His  complete
submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  It appears that under  the  given
circumstances,  responsible  officials  applied  appropriate  standards   in
effecting his administrative discharge action and after thorough  review  of
the evidence of record we find no impropriety.  Applicant’s contentions  and
supporting statements were duly noted.  We considered  his  overall  quality
of service and the events which precipitated the discharge; and, realize  as
well that his ex-wife may have  been  partly  responsible  for  the  marital
friction.   However,  we  do  not  find  these  assertions  and   supporting
documentation  mitigating  or  sufficiently  persuasive  to   override   the
evidence of record.  We find no evidence of error in  this  case  and  after
thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been  submitted  in  support
of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an  injustice.
 Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, and  in  the  absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find  no  compelling  basis  upon  which  to
favorably consider this application.

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  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 20 Mar 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/JA, dated 19 Jan 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Feb 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Feb 01, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair