RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03208
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  MR. ALAN K. HAHN

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Board set aside two Article 15 punishments imposed upon him  on  11  Dec
95 and 12 Sep 96; set aside the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SAF)  decision
to retire him in the grade of major; and, that he be retired  in  the  grade
of colonel; or, in the alternative, return him to active Reserve  status  in
the grade of colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received Article 15  punishment  in  December  1995  for  allegations  of
conduct unbecoming an officer, which alleged a  form  of  sexual  harassment
and unprofessional behavior for allegedly repeatedly seeking  dinner  dates,
sexual relations, and/or making comments of a sexual nature to 3 females  at
XXXXX.  The facts do not support the allegations and the allegations do  not
state an offense under the Uniform Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).   He
invited XXXX out to dinner with over 20 other individuals  as  part  of  his
leadership  in  promoting   the   reserve   program   through   professional
development, improving working relationships, networking,  and  exchange  of
information.  Her statement that he approached her twice  about  dinner  and
made an innocuous compliment that she was "looking nice today"  is  entirely
devoid of sexual content  and  does  not  constitute  sexual  harassment  as
defined by the UCMJ, Manual for Court-Martial (MCM), or as defined by  civil
law.  Regarding the allegation that he asked XXXXX out 15  to  20  times  is
totally unreliable hearsay and  not  a  form  of  sexual  harassment  or  an
offense under Article 133, UCMJ.  There is  no  statement  from  XXXXX,  but
merely a summary of a phone  conversation  by  XXXXX.   His  denial  of  her
allegations has been verified by a polygraph examination.   XXXXX   was  not
even an Air Force employee, but a former Air Force employee who was  working
for a contractor at the time.  Under Article 93, UCMJ, sexual harassment  is
strictly defined in terms of subordinates.   The  alleged  comment  made  to
XXXXX and her 14 page chronology are  refuted  not  only  by  his  polygraph
results  but  also  by  his  specific  rebuttal  response  and  by  5  other
individuals who refute specific parts of her chronology.
In regards to the Article 15  punishment  imposed  in  September  1996,  the
charges  originated  as  false  official  statements  and  theft  of   basic
allowance  for  quarters  (BAQ)  at  the  with  dependent  rate  which  were
investigated under Article 32, UCMJ.  He proved he had common law  marriage,
recognized by the  Air  Force  for  pay  and  allowance  purposes,  and  his
California divorce was set aside establishing his  legal  marriage  for  the
period in question.  To  attempt  to  salvage  its  case  against  him,  the
prosecutors added a charge of adultery with the aforementioned  XXXXX  which
occurred during the same period of time as covered by the  previous  Article
15  punishment.   The  charge  was  "in  the  alternative"  since  applicant
couldn't be guilty of false statements and BAQ fraud but could be guilty  of
adultery and vice versa if he is not married.  The fact  that  he  had  been
intimate with XXXXX had been admitted,  along  with  uncertainty  about  his
marital status on 25 Sep 95.   Both  the  California  court  and  Air  Force
determinations of his marriage were in 1996, well after  the  XXXXX  matters
arose in 1995.  He  therefore,  lacked  certain  knowledge  of  his  marital
status    rendering    the    XXXXX     matter     even     less     service
discrediting/prejudicial to good order  and  discipline  as  required  under
Article 134, UCMJ.  Ultimately all charges were withdrawn  from  the  court-
martial  proceedings  and  the  Article  15  action  was  imposed   instead.
Punishment for the alleged adultery during virtually the  same  time  period
of the Tyndall AFB Article 15 violates the multiple punishment provision  of
the MCM since the adultery was known and ready for disposition and was  part
of "all such offenses arising from a single incident of course of conduct."

He was also charged with attempting to  falsely  state  he  was  married  on
various Air Force forms when in fact the statements were not  false  because
he was actually married.  He was charged with attempting to  steal  pay  and
allowances due when in fact there was  no  theft  because  he  was  in  fact
married and due the pay  and  allowances.   There  is  no  evidence  in  the
record, and none exists that he was anything but unclear  in  his  own  mind
about whether he was married in the eyes of the law  before  the  Air  Force
and the State of California formally recognized his  marriage  in  1996.   A
lack of certain knowledge knowing belief in his marital status  renders  his
guilt to the attempt charges unsupportable, because he lacked  the  specific
knowledge and intent to make a false statement.

As evidenced by correspondence from the General Law Division, Office of  the
Judge Advocate General, USAF and the Air Reserve  Personnel  Center  (ARPC),
the Air Force has administratively determined that the SAF lacked  authority
under 10 U.S.C. to  make  a  Retired  Grade  Determination  (RGD)  regarding
applicant but did so anyway.  His promotion on  1  Aug  95  was  before  the
effective date  of  1  Oct  96  for  secretarial  authority  to  make  grade
determinations of officers receiving non-EAD Reserve  retirements  under  10
U.S.C.   Moreover,  the  RGD  is  dependent  upon  the  Article  15  charges
discussed above.  The  RDG  did  not  sufficiently  reflect  on  applicant's
outstanding  contributions   as   a   Reserve   officer,   his   record   of
accomplishments, and references.  The charge of adultery  took  place  after
his promotion to colonel on 1 Aug 95 and should affect his  service  at  the
grade  of  colonel  not  lieutenant  colonel.   In  addition,  he  has  been
victimized by a lack of understanding and  appreciation  of  Reserve/Regular
Air Force cultural differences, which are important in this case.

In support of his request,  applicant  has  provided  his  counsel’s  brief,
copies of his September 1996 and December 1996 Article  15  punishments  and
documents associated with his request for set  aside;  documents  associated
with his polygraph examination; statements  alleged  sexual  harassment  and
applicant’s  responses;  character  reference   statements;   his   personal
biography; AF Forms 938, Request and Authorization for Active Duty  Training
with administrative changes; a copy of his divorce  decree;  AF  Forms  594,
Authorization to Start,  Stop,  or  Change  Basic  Allowance  for  Quarters;
copies of his Leave and  Earnings  Statements;  copies  of  AF  Forms  1965,
Earnings  Statement  Air  Reserve  Forces;  documents  associated  with  his
entitlement to  BAQ  at  the  with  dependent  rate  issue;  copies  of  his
performance reports rendered from 1 Aug  87  through  6  Jun  95;  documents
associated with his Article 32 investigation; his documents associated  with
his RGD; and, a personal statement.  His complete submission is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant, a former enlisted Air National  Guard  member,  was  appointed  a
second lieutenant,  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force,  on  8  Sep  73.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of   1 Aug 95.

On 8 Nov 95, the  applicant  was  notified  of  his  commander’s  intent  to
recommend that nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, be imposed  on
him for conduct unbecoming of an officer in violation of Article 133,  UCMJ.
 The conduct underlying the three specifications was the  sexual  harassment
of/unprofessional behavior  towards  a  Reserve-enlisted  member,  a  former
civilian employee of the Air Force, and  an  Air  Force  civilian  employee.
Applicant was advised of  his  rights  in  this  matter.   After  consulting
counsel, applicant waived  his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,
accepted Article 15 proceedings, and made an oral and  written  presentation
to the commander.  On 11 Dec 95, the  Numbered  Air  Force  Commander  found
that the applicant had committed one or more of  the  offenses  alleged  and
imposed punishment on him consisting of a forfeiture of $2,840.00 per  month
for two months.  The applicant did not appeal.

On 13 Jun 96 and on 12 Aug 96, charges were referred for  trial  by  general
court-martial  against  applicant.    The   specific   charges   were   four
specifications that the applicant did, with intent to  deceive,  make  false
official statements by signing an official record; three  specifications  of
stealing military property in the form  of  pay  and  allowances;  and,  one
specification of wrongfully having sexual intercourse with a woman, not  his
wife.   Applicant  was  arraigned  on  16  Aug  96.   The  proceedings  were
terminated and on 9 Oct 96 the charges were subsequently  withdrawn  by  the
general court martial authority.

On 4 Sep 96, the applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent  to
impose nonjudicial punishment under Article  15,  UCMJ,  for  attempting  to
make false official statements, attempting to steal pay  and  allowances  to
which he was not entitled, and adultery in  violation  of  Articles  80  and
134.  Applicant was advised of his rights in this matter.  After  consulting
counsel, applicant waived  his  right  to  demand  trial  by  court-martial,
accepted Article 15 proceedings, and made oral and written presentations  to
the commander.  On 12 Sep 96,  the  applicant's  commander  found  that  the
applicant had committed one or more of the offenses  alleged  and  sentenced
applicant to a  forfeiture  of  pay  of  $3,000.00  and  a  reprimand.   The
applicant did not appeal.

On 9 May 97, the Air Force Personnel Board considered  the  applicant's  RGD
case.  After thoroughly reviewing  the  case  file,  the  board  unanimously
agreed and recommended that he be retired in the grade of major  (O-4).   On
30 Jul 97, The SAF found the applicant did not serve satisfactorily  in  the
higher grades of colonel (O-6)  and  lieutenant  colonel  (O-5)  within  the
meaning of Section 1370(d)(1), Title 10, U.S.C.  The SAF did  find  that  he
served satisfactorily in the  grade  of  major  (O-4)  and  directed  he  be
retired in that grade.  He has 27 years of satisfactory Federal service.

On 31 Dec 97, the  applicant  was  relieved  from  his  current  assignment,
assigned to the Retired Reserve Section and  his  name  was  placed  on  the
Retired Reserve List in the grade of major.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  ARPC/JA,  reviewed  applicant's  request   and
recommends partial relief.  JA states that apparently it  was  assumed  that
applicant was single at the time the underlying conduct  of  his  8  Nov  95
Article 15 punishment, this was actually not the case.   Applicant  divorced
his wife in 1982.  After a short separation, they  began  to  live  together
and held themselves as man and wife as if nothing had happened.  He did  not
attempt to cure the divorce legally, however,  until  after  adverse  action
for BAQ fraud was initiated against him.  The  California  court  set  aside
the divorce as if it had never occurred.   The  alleged  conduct  underlying
the 4 Sep 96 Article 15, under Article 80 was the  attempt  to  deceive  and
defraud the Government regarding pay  entitlements.   While  applicant  does
not dispute the adultery charges his arguments against  the  allegations  of
sexual harassment and unprofessional behavior are without merit.   He  does,
however, have a persuasive argument regarding the charge and  specifications
under Article 80 in the 1996 Article 15.  JA  recommends  that  the  charges
and specifications under Article 80 be set aside, the remaining charges  and
specifications stand, that applicant be retired in the grade  of  lieutenant
colonel   (0-5) and that a determination be made concerning his  entitlement
to back pay and allowances (see Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant's counsel responded and states the  advisory  opinion  appears  to
accept the argument in his brief  that  the  applicant's  actions  were  not
sexual harassment,  but  appears  to  uphold  these  specifications  on  the
grounds  that  they  were  nonetheless   "unprofessional   behavior."    The
arguments made in the brief regarding alleged sexual harassment  apply  with
equal force to the “unprofessional conduct" theory.  Counsel reiterated  his
arguments against the accusations of the December 1995 Article 15.   Counsel
states that for an Article 133  offense,  the  conduct  must  "dishonor  and
disgrace" the officer, "seriously compromising the person's standing  as  an
officer."  These standards were not met.  The entire December  1995  Article
15  was  marked  by  a  "bandwagon  effect"  whereby  weak  and   incredible
allegations were bundled together to prejudicially  give  credence  to  each
other.

As previously stated, applicant had  admitted  to  intimacy  with  XXXXX  at
Tyndall AFB before the 1995 Article 15 was imposed and it  was  ignored  (it
is not accurate to say that applicant admitted adultery since  at  the  time
he was unclear about his marital status).   Applicant  was  unclear  in  his
mind about whether he was married before the Air Force and California  court
determinations in 1996, he further lacked the  requisite  general  state  of
mind  for  an  adultery  offense  and  his  actions  were  not   under   the
circumstances sufficiently  service  discrediting  or  prejudicial  to  good
order and  discipline  as  originally  recognized  at  Tyndall  AFB  and  as
required by Article 134, UCMJ.

In regards  to  the  advisory  opinion  recommendation  regarding  the  RGD,
counsel reiterates his previous argument and adds the RDG was  motivated  by
the specifications of attempt which are  correctly  recognized  as  invalid.
The remaining Article 15 specifications are  legally  deficient  as  lacking
either proof or gravity to be proper  subjects  of  nonjudicial  punishment.
It is clear that but for the attempt specifications, the RGD would not  have
been done in the first instance.  Even if the remaining specifications  were
somehow legally sufficient, the conduct  alleged  is  not  of  the  type  or
gravity for which a RGD would have been sought or made.

In further support of his request, counsel provided  a  statement  from  the
applicant.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,   reviewed
applicant's request and recommends denial.  JAJM states that  regarding  the
8 Nov 95 Article 15, the applicant was punished for  conduct  unbecoming  an
officer.  The conduct of an officer need not otherwise  be  a  crime  to  be
punishable under Article 133.  The test is whether the  conduct  has  fallen
below the standards established for officers.  Indecent  language,  such  as
that communicated to the third  woman,  violates  Article  133  even  if  in
private.  The applicant's actions are  clearly  "unbecoming"  an  honorable,
decent, and moral man.  Any 'reasonable military  officer'  would  recognize
that fact.  The evidence of records supports the  commander's  finding  that
the applicant's conduct constituted conduct unbecoming an officer.

Regarding  the  4  Sep  96  Article  15,  JAJM  does  not  agree  with   the
recommendation of ARPC/JA that the Article  80  charges  and  specifications
merit set aside.  JAJM states that the although the applicant contends  that
he and his ex-wife living together constituted a  common  law  marriage,  it
was never legally so recognized.  Therefore, at the  time  he  executed  the
documents referenced in the specifications, he had no basis  to  believe  he
was legally married.  The Air Force clearly stated that  because  it  lacked
"administrative authority to determine whether marital  relationships  exist
for purposes other that determining dependency status, it  is  improper  for
us  to  substantively  respond  to  your  request  for   generic   "official
recognition" of you marital status."  Moreover,  the  applicant's  knowledge
of his status is evidenced  by  his  admission  that  "for  years  after  my
divorce, I requested BAQ at the without dependent rate."   In  his  response
to the Article  15,  applicant  argues  that  since  the  California  decree
setting aside the divorce took  place  after  the  alleged  adultery  it  is
impossible for the government to rely on it as their evidence,  yet  in  his
petition for relief before the  Board,  he  maintains  that  the  California
court action absolves  him  of  guilt  for  the  charged  attempt  offenses.
Clearly, he adopts the position most advantageous to his situation,  and  by
his  own  actions  has  attempted  to  avoid  legal  accountability  through
manipulation of fact and legal status.

The applicant was not charged with making false statements  or  larceny  but
rather with attempted false statements and  attempted  larceny.   A  similar
court case held that "even if it is factually or legally impossible  for  an
accused to commit an  offense  under  the  circumstances  as  they  actually
exist, the accused may be convicted of an attempt to  commit  that  offense,
if he would be guilty of the completed crime had the circumstances  been  as
he believed them to be."  By setting aside  the  applicant's  1982  divorce,
the divorce never took place and the applicant remained legally  married  to
his wife.  Therefore the admitted meretricious encounter with  a  woman  not
his wife constitutes adultery.  Contrary to his assertion, this conduct  was
not encompassed in the initial Article  15.   Although  the  Air  Force  was
aware of the relationship, which led to the  adultery  charge,  it  was  not
actionable at the time.  The divorce decree was  legally  operative  and  no
judicial determination of the existence of a  common  law  marriage  existed
(see Exhibit F).

The Chief, General Law Division, USAF/JAG, reviewed applicant’s request  and
states  that  as  with  Regular  officers,  the  Secretary  has  always  had
authority to conduct RGDs on Reserve officers.  Under ROPA,  that  authority
was contained in 10 U.S.C. 1374, which was repealed by ROPMA  and  moved  to
10 U.S.C.  12771.  The important aspect  of  both  statutory  provisions  is
that the  Secretary’s  authority  to  conduct  a  grade  determination  upon
transfer to the Retired Reserves remained the same,  whether  the  applicant
was promoted under ROPA or ROPMA.  It was pursuant to  this  authority  that
the SAF considered applicant’s misconduct, which occurred while he was  both
an 0-5 and 0-6, and determined that the highest grade  in  which  he  served
satisfactorily was 0-4 (see Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant's counsel responded to the additional  advisory  and  states  that
JAJM offers no explanation how  asking  a  reserve  enlisted  woman  out  to
dinner 2 times would be  a  "form  of  sexual  harassment"  but  appears  to
conclude that such is criminal "unprofessional  conduct"  because  applicant
was warned by the first sergeant.  The evidence does not establish that,  as
claimed by JAJM, the applicant asked XXXXX  out  to  dinner  a  second  time
after applicant was spoken to by the first sergeant.  XXXXX's  statement  is
silent about the date she was allegedly approached  by  applicant  a  second
time.  JAJM also ignores the inconvenient facts such  as  reservists  dining
together is common, and specifically ignores the fact that  XXXXX  paid  for
XXXXX 's meal.  Counsel repeats his prior  arguments  concerning  XXXXX  and
XXXXX and  reiterates  that  these  allegations  are  legally  deficient  as
criminal offenses under Article 133.

JAJM notes that applicant did not appeal the 8 Nov 95 Article 15,
suggesting he somehow agreed with the result of the proceedings by not
appealing.  Applicant had already been on active duty 3 months longer
than his originally planned 3-month tour.  He was told he would have to
further extend his active duty tour to appeal, and he could not take this
additional time.

Regarding the 12 Sep 96  Article  15,  counsel  states  that  attempt  under
Article 80 is a specific intent crime.  Applicant was unsure of his  marital
status because he was unsure if he had  a  common  law  marriage  by  having
lived in so many states.  Contrary to the JAJM opinion, he did have a  basis
to believe he was married, because he had  a  basis  to  believe  he  had  a
common law marriage.  In the cited court case the accused knew  he  was  not
married in any way and  that  the  common  law  marriage  was  a  sham.   In
applicant's case,  he  was  unsure  about  the  status  of  his  common  law
marriage.  He therefore cannot be found guilty of attempt because  since  he
believed  himself  to  possibly  be  married  under  common  law  he  cannot
specifically intend under Article 80 to falsify  documents  stating  he  was
married.  JAJM does  not  address  the  confusion  of  Reserve  pay  records
addressed in his declaration and exhibits  or  how  this  confusion  further
negates any of the required specific intent to attempt to falsify or  steal.


Counsel states that there is insufficient evidence that applicant  committed
any or a sufficient amount of the alleged misconduct  before  his  promotion
to colonel on 1 Aug 95, to justify that he did  not  perform  satisfactorily
as a lieutenant colonel.  Even if  the  8  Nov  95  Article  15  is  upheld,
therefore he should be retired as least in the grade of  lieutenant  colonel
(see Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not  persuaded
that  the  contested  Article  15  punishments  should   be   voided.    His
contentions are duly noted; however, we do  not  find  these  uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the
available evidence of  record.   After  thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
provided, it is our opinion that the underlying  misconduct  which  resulted
in the imposition of  nonjudicial  punishment  on  11  Dec  95,  was  indeed
unbecoming and unprofessional.  The Article  15  was  within  legal  limits,
appropriate to the offense, and does not appear unjust or  disproportionate.
 The confusion as to his marital status, which  predicated  the  nonjudicial
punishment under Article 80, UCMJ, on 12 Dec  96,  was  perpetuated  by  the
applicant’s indication at times on official documents that  he  was  married
and at other times  that  he  was  not.   We  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendation of the Office of the Judge Advocate General that  it  appears
he manipulated the position of his marital status which was most  convenient
and advantageous to his own ends.  As a result of  the  applicant’s  common-
law marriage and the action taken by the California Court to set  aside  his
divorce, it is our opinion that he  was  married  during  the  time  of  his
admitted sexual relationship, and thus, the specification  of  adultery  was
appropriate.   Absent  persuasive  evidence  showing   that   the   imposing
commanders  abused  their  discretionary  authority,  that  his  substantial
rights were violated during the processing of the  Article  15  punishments,
or that the punishments exceeded the maximum  authorized  by  the  UCMJ,  we
find no basis to disturb the existing record.

4.  With respect to the Officer Grade Determination (OGD), after a  thorough
review of the facts and circumstances of  this  case  we  believe  that  the
underlying misconduct which resulted  in  the  Article  15  punishments  was
sufficient  to  support  a  finding  that  the  applicant  had  not   served
satisfactorily in the grades of lieutenant colonel or  colonel.   Given  the
multiplicity of his offenses while serving the grade of  lieutenant  colonel
and the seriousness of his misconduct during the short  period  of  time  he
served in the grade  of  colonel,  the  Board  does  not  believe  that  the
findings of the OGD constitute an injustice.  In our view,  the  applicant’s
behavior was incongruent with the highest standards expected of  an  officer
in the United States Air Force.  In light of the above, we  do  not  believe
that his request to be returned to active Reserve status  in  the  grade  of
colonel warrants favorable consideration.  Accordingly, in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

5. Sufficient relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or  injustice  in  regards  to  the  applicant’s
entitlement to basic allowance for quarters  (BAQ)  at  the  with  dependent
rate.  Since the Air Force is  obligated  to  recognize  the  aforementioned
decision of the California  Court  to  set-aside  his  divorce,  it  is  our
opinion that  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  the  appropriate  BAQ  rates
thereof.  Therefore we recommend his records  be  corrected  to  the  extent
indicated below.

6.  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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that effective  29  Oct  81,  his  marital
status reflected “married” and that he was entitled to basic  allowance  for
quarters (BAQ) at the with dependent rate.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 11 Apr 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mrs. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
      Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/JA, dated 20 Sep 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Oct 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM. dated 10 Mar 00.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, USAF/JAG, dated 8 Sep 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Oct 00.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 1 Nov 00.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair


AFBCMR 98-03208




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that effective 29 Oct 81, his
marital status reflected “married” and that he was entitled to basic
allowance for quarters (BAQ) at the with dependent rate.









  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency