RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01343
            INDEX NUMBER:  136.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Officer Grade  Determination
(OGD), dated 25 February 1997, be changed to reflect that he served
satisfactorily in the higher grade of lieutenant colonel.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period he was going through the OGD,  he  provided  very
little in his defense.  Until now, he  has  not  been  emotionally,
psychologically, or rationally prepared to express  his  objections
to  his  perceptions  of  possible  injustice.   He  has  been   on
medication for quite some time.

He  accepted  the  Article  15  without  question.   He  was  under
tremendous duress and  depression  brought  about  by  an  imminent
divorce and the complete loss of his family.  His highest  priority
was to save his marriage.  All else seemed insignificant,  even  to
protect and attempt to defend  himself  in  the  face  of  military
judgments.

He was the senior officer in the V-22 joint service program office,
where the  atmosphere  was  very  hostile  to  the  Air  Force  for
political reasons, which contributed to his despair.  He  requested
support from both the  program  office  and  the  Air  Force  after
discovering deficiencies in design and testing, but he was  totally
ignored.  He was hurt professionally and personally.

He felt abandoned and emotionally destroyed by the only entities he
ever cared about.  These two events led to such  severe  depression
that he began to consume more alcohol.  His doctors  determined  he
was near suicidal and recommended anti-depressant  medication.   He
admitted himself  to  the  Substance  Abuse  Rehabilitation  Center
(SARC) at Andrews Air Force Base, and was a patient at the time  he
officially signed the Article 15.  No legal counsel was present  or
available.   He  does  not  dispute  the  punishment;  however,  he
believes   there   were   mitigating    circumstances    for    his
uncharacteristic behavior.

He was never informed  of  an  OGD  until  several  days  after  he
requested  retirement  (September  1996).   He  was  under  extreme
duress,  depression  and  hopelessness  that  resulted  in  actions
leading to the Article 15.  As additional  evidence,  he  offers  a
summary of  his  background  for  the  Board’s  consideration.   He
believes he earned and deserves  the  rank  of  lieutenant  colonel
based on 26 years of service and not on a moment in his  life  that
clearly is not representative  of  the  dedication,  devotion,  and
sacrifice he willingly made and would make again to his country.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant  entered  on  active  duty  with  the  Air  Force  on
2 January 1982.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of  1  December  1993.   He
voluntarily  retired  by  reason   of   “Sufficient   Service   for
Retirement,” effective  1  May  1997.   He  had  served  15  years,
3 months and 29 days on active duty.  He had 9 years, 3 months  and
16 days of total prior active service, for a  total  of  24  years,
7 months and 15 days of active service for retirement.

On 15 November 1995, the applicant’s commander initiated Article 15
proceedings against him for dereliction of duties; making  a  false
official statement; and for conduct unbecoming an officer.  Between
1 January 1995 and 11 October 1995, the applicant was  derelict  in
the performance of his duties as the Air Force Program Manager  for
the joint aircraft procurement program.  Specifically, he failed to
attend team meetings on a  regular  basis,  failed  to  stay  until
meetings were completed, and failed to ensure  adequate  Air  Force
representation in his absence.  During this same  period,  he  made
inappropriate comments in the  workplace  concerning  his  personal
life and sexual encounters.  Specifically, while still married,  he
reported carrying on a relationship with  a  female  who  had  been
previously employed in the office and told co-workers of his sexual
exploits with her.  Finally, after his  subordinates  reported  his
conduct, an officer was appointed by command to conduct an inquiry.
 When the applicant was questioned by that officer about whether he
was undergoing psychiatric care or psychological counseling (as  he
had told his subordinates) and about whether he had  discussed  his
personal life in the workplace, the applicant  denied  all  of  the
allegations.   He  was  under  psychiatric  care,   was   receiving
psychological counseling, and had, as testimony  disclosed,  talked
about  his  personal  life  and  sexual  exploits.   The   evidence
supporting the Article 15 action  is  contained  in  the  Inspector
General report of Inquiry (ROI), dated 12 October 1995.

The applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15 and  was  found
guilty of the offenses charged.  Punishment consisted of forfeiture
of $400 per month for 2 months and a reprimand.  The Article 15 was
placed in his unfavorable information file (UIF) and on 13 February
1996, the ASC/CC decided to place the Article 15  in  both  the  HQ
USAF and Officer Command Selection Records.

On 4 September 1996, the applicant applied  for  retirement  to  be
effective 1 October 1996.  On  17  September  1996,  his  commander
notified him that he was initiating an  OGD  because  he  had  been
punished pursuant to Article 15 within  two  years  of  retirement.
The applicant submitted a response to the action  on  17  September
1996.

On 30 September 1996, the ASC/CC recommended that the applicant  be
permitted to retire in the grade of major.

On 21 October 1996, the applicant’s  counsel  submitted  additional
matters.  The Major Command Judge Advocate General reviewed the OGD
file on 8 and 25 October 1996  and  found  it  legally  sufficient.
They  recommended  that   AFMC/CV   forward   the   file   with   a
recommendation that the  applicant  be  retired  as  a  major.   On
25 November 1996, AFMC/CV recommended he be retired in the grade of
major, the highest grade satisfactorily held.

The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Board considered the  case
on 14 February  1997.   The  Board  found  his  misconduct  had  an
extremely detrimental impact on the small unit he was charged  with
leading and adversely impacted on the Air Force as a whole.   Given
the  short  period  of  time  in  grade,  the  lengthy  period   of
misconduct, and the severe impact of  that  misconduct,  the  Board
found that he had failed to serve satisfactorily  as  a  lieutenant
colonel and unanimously agreed that he should  be  retired  in  the
grade of major.

On 25 February 1997, the Director, Air Force Review Boards  Agency,
acting in behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, determined that
the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the higher  grade  of
lieutenant colonel and directed that he be retired in the grade  of
major.  The applicant was subsequently  retired  in  the  grade  of
major, effective 1 May 1997.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRR determined  that  the  procedures  were  followed  in
accordance with policy concerning  the  OGD  process.   All  proper
coordination  and  recommendations  were  made  from  the  Unit/CC,
MAJCOM/JA, and MAJCOM/CV.  The applicant  was  officially  notified
and was given  the  opportunity  to  submit  documentation  on  his
behalf.  AFPC/DPPRR deferred to the decision of SAFPC, stating that
only that office has the authority to make OGD determinations.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated that he did not know what grade  determination
meant until several days after he  requested  retirement.   He  was
never informed or counseled about the consequences of an Article 15
possibly leading to a grade determination until he called  for  the
status of his retirement application.  Upon learning  of  the  two-
year provisional period that the grade determination  would  be  in
effect, he attempted to retract  his  retirement  application.   He
would have been only 6 months away from the  two-year  period  when
the board made its  decision  regarding  grade  determination.   He
earned an Air Force Achievement Medal for a special project  during
the period after the Article 15 and his actual retirement.  He  was
in the Andrews Air Force Base Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Center
when he signed the Article 15.

He was under extreme duress and depression and felt hopeless, which
resulted in actions leading to the Article 15.  He was under  heavy
medication for depression.  He also  discovered  he  suffered  from
alcoholism, which led him down a path of destruction.   His  doctor
and a psychiatrist determined he was near suicidal because  of  two
traumatic incidents that occurred during the time of the Article 15
charges.  These incidents led to medication and  excessive  alcohol
consumption.

The applicant offers a synopsis of legal considerations prepared by
his attorney, which gives a summary of his background.   He  states
the OGD is hundreds of times greater than the original  Article  15
punishment.

It took him 26 years to work  himself  from  airman  to  lieutenant
colonel.  The very short period of his career and  life,  resulting
in an Article 15, does not represent the loyalty and sacrifices  he
willingly gave to the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated  that,  while  alcoholism  is  a
recognized disease, it is not accepted as a mitigating disorder for
any misconduct an individual might commit.  The grade determination
was entirely appropriate to the circumstances and the egregiousness
of his actions warranted retirement in the lower grade.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated  he  does  not  dispute  the  results  of  the
Article 15.  His appeal  relates  to  the  treatment  and  lack  of
counseling and guidance he received during and due to  the  Article
15, prior to his retirement, during  his  retirement  request,  and
upon his retirement.  He would have waited for the probationary two-
year period to expire had he been informed about it.

He  does  not  consider  his  extreme   duress,   depression,   and
hopelessness excuses for the Article 15 violations, but more as  an
explanation for his uncharacteristic behavior.  While  he  may  not
agree with some of the Article 15 charges and feels he should  have
challenged some of them, he  still  strongly  feels  he  should  be
personally accountable to the Air Force in every regard.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

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.   The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do  not  find
these assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the  available
evidence of record.  Moreover, the Board was not persuaded that the
applicant’s illness or any other stressors in his life  excuse  his
actions.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence provided,  it  is
our  opinion  that  the  Article  15  was  within   legal   limits,
appropriate  to  the  offenses,  and  does  not  appear  unjust  or
disproportionate.  In the absence of  persuasive  evidence  showing
that the imposing commanders abused their discretionary  authority,
that his substantial rights were violated during the processing  of
the Article 15 punishment, or  that  the  punishment  exceeded  the
maximum authorized by the UCMJ, we find no  basis  to  disturb  the
existing record.  Since he received the Article 15 within two years
of his retirement, a grade determination was required.

4.  Consequently, with respect to the Officer  Grade  Determination
(OGD), after a thorough review of the facts  and  circumstances  of
this case, we conclude that there are  no  grounds  to  change  the
finding that the applicant did  not  serve  satisfactorily  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel.  Given the nature of the  offenses  of
which he was found guilty while serving in the grade of  lieutenant
colonel, the Board is not persuaded that the findings  of  the  OGD
constitute  an  injustice,  or  that  the  process   followed   was
incorrect.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

5.  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 6  December  2001,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 21 Aug 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Aug 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Sep 2001.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Oct 2001.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 2001.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Nov 2001.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair