RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00308
            INDEX CODE:  126.00, 129.04
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Fred L. Bauer

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Officer Grade Determination (OGD) decision that  he  be  retired  in
the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside.

2.  His promotion to the grade of brigadier general  be  reinstated  and  he
receive back pay and allowances.

3.  His nonjudicial punishment under Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) be set aside.

4.  He be placed in the position he would have been in if  no  action  would
have been taken against him.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

After his  selection  for  promotion  to  brigadier  general,  a  number  of
allegations were made, which resulted in  his  removal  from  the  brigadier
general promotion list.  As a result of  an  OGD  decision,  after  over  27
years of active duty service, he had to retire in the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  The cost to the applicant could be close  to  a  million  dollars.
This  is  especially  egregious  since  the  alleged   misconduct   probably
warranted nothing more than a counseling or arguably a "desk-drawer"  letter
of reprimand (LOR).  Prior to 1995 the OGD process was used very  sparingly,
usually in courts-martial cases, and normally  they  did  not  result  in  a
reduced retirement grade.  Suddenly, the number of  OGDs  doubled  and  more
than tripled  and  the  number  of  cases  resulting  in  actual  reductions
skyrocketed.   While  the  number  of  OGDs  resulting  from  courts-martial
remained relatively stable, Article 15s (which according to the  Manual  for
Courts-Martial are for MINOR  offenses)  were  increasingly  being  used  to
justify penalties that it would  take  multiple  courts-martial  to  impose.
The investigative report indicates that unnamed individuals  first  reported
the allegations against the applicant.  Applicant believes that one  of  the
individuals is his wife's former spouse  who  believes  that  the  applicant
alienated him from his former spouse.

With respect to the allegation that he abused his authority on 2 Jan  98  by
placing his dependents on  a  KC-135  aircraft  without  being  in  properly
authorized leave status, applicant states that during the past 2  years,  he
had taken ordinary leave twice, normally in conjunction with temporary  duty
(TDY).  As a result, he was somewhat unfamiliar with the intricacies of  the
ordinary leave process.  He  was  advised  that  as  a  commander  he  could
authorize his own leave  when  he  and  his  commander  were  geographically
separated.  Two individuals witnessed his leave documentation and he left  a
copy with the base dispatcher.  He  believes  that  he  was  in  a  properly
authorized leave status.  Counsel states  that  anyone  who  has  served  on
active duty knows  that  the  leave  process  is  an  amorphous  amalgam  of
standards that even JAG's cannot honestly understand.

With respect to the allegation that he abused his authority on 8 Jan  98  by
placing his dependents on a KC-135 aircraft  without  being  in  a  properly
authorized leave status, applicant states that he filled out a  leave  form,
had it stamped at the passenger terminal, but it  wasn't  processed  through
the orderly room properly.  The previous year he had lost 19 days  of  leave
because he failed to use it in time.   Like  most  senior  officers  in  his
position, he had leave to burn and no incentive not to use it up.

Regarding the allegation that he misused Government resources  by  using  an
Air Force staff car for personal purposes during the period 2 -  8  Jan  98,
applicant states that this period was essentially  a  working  leave  period
and with the one exception he used the GOV for valid duty-related  purposes.
 The one exception was when he drove the  GOV  to  the  terminal  to  get  a
rental car for his wife.  Since he had no  other  transportation,  applicant
believes it is more than a stretch to categorize this as an abuse.

Regarding the allegation that he inappropriately logged flight time when  he
was in a non-crew member status, applicant states that he was trying  to  do
a favorable evaluation for the crew of the aircraft  and  believed  that  he
needed to qualify as a non-crew member in order to  do  so.   There  was  no
personal advantage for doing this.

Regarding the allegation that he inappropriately discussed  the  substantive
nature of an on-going  Inspector  General  (IG)  investigation  after  being
directed not to discuss the matter, applicant states  that  aside  from  the
questionable proposition that the giver of the  order  was  qualified  as  a
superior, the main purpose of this rule is to protect  the  privacy  of  the
person being investigated (in this case himself).  If he voluntarily  waives
the privacy issue, where's the harm.

Regarding the allegation  that  he  inappropriately  filed  travel  vouchers
outside of the filing guidelines, applicant states that with a military  job
that requires frequent travel, getting every travel voucher in on time is  a
virtual impossibility.  While it is understandable that the  finance  office
wants to keep order, service members  have  to  prioritize  their  time  and
often cannot cross every "T" and dot every "I" because there is  simply  not
enough time to do  so.   Taking  time  to  do  a  better  job  of  attending
"nitnoid" administrative actions would probably  lead  to  not  getting  the
main job done.

Regarding the allegation that he claimed as TDY time, time  he  spent  at  a
golf tournament, applicant states that he  had  indeed  received  a  message
stating that those attending the golf tournament, during a  scheduled  3-day
TDY should count that time as leave.  But  when  he  filed  his  voucher  he
forgot to annotate his voucher listing this exception.   It  was  an  honest
oversight, not an intentional omission to collect any extra money.

After having worked 26-27 years to make promotion to brigadier  general,  it
is not at all likely that anyone is going to risk it all by  going  AWOL  or
cheating the Government for a few days leave when it is not unusual for  you
to lose the extra leave days you have accumulated by the end of  the  fiscal
year, or intentionally doing any of  the  other  alleged  offenses  in  this
case.  Admittedly he should have submitted his travel vouchers earlier,  and
it probably created some administrative work for the folks at finance.   But
in effect it was an interest-free loan to the  Government  and  clearly  was
not done with the intent to defraud anyone (although  he  may  have  cheated
himself out of money by doing so).  This is the type of matter  that  should
have been handled by a phone call to the applicant or  his  supervisor.   If
there had been a continuing problem the supervisor  could  have  called  the
applicant and told him to get it done.  At worst, a "desk-drawer" letter  of
reprimand might (but probably would not) have been necessary.  Even  if  the
Board is not ready to declare the OGD process illegal, this  case  does  not
warrant a million dollar penalty.  There was no  intentional  misconduct,  a
review of his character references and his performance reports reveals  that
he was, and remains, an honorable man.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  counsel's   brief,
documentation  associated  with  his  removal  from  the   promotion   list,
retirement  pay  and  Survivor's  Benefit   Plan   (SBP)   comparisons   and
statistics, documentation associated with his  IG  investigation;  AF  Forms
988, Request and Authorization for Leave; documentation associated with  his
OGD determination, OGD analysis  data,  excerpts  from  newspaper  articles,
AMC/CV message 211407Z Aug 97, and character  references.   The  applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the  Air  Force  and
was voluntarily ordered to extended  active  duty  on  20 May  72.   He  was
progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, having  assumed  that  grade
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 89.

He was selected for promotion to the  grade  of  brigadier  general  by  the
Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Brigadier General Selection Board.  On 14 Oct  98,
he was notified that the President of the United  States  removed  his  name
from the brigadier general promotion list.

On 18 Sep 98, the applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent  to
recommend nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the  UCMJ  for  failure
to follow proper leave procedures and failure to comply with the  guidelines
and  restrictions  on  attendance  at   the   Airlift   Tanker   Association
convention, in violation of Article  92,  UCMJ;  and  for,  with  intent  to
deceive, signing official documents, AF Form 781s, which  forms  were  false
and he  had  not  in  fact  performed  evaluator  pilot  flight  duties,  in
violation of Article 107, UCMJ.  He  was  advised  of  his  rights  in  this
matter and acknowledged receipt of the notification  on  23 Sep  98.   After
consulting counsel, the applicant waived his right to demand trial by court-
martial, accepted Article 15 proceedings, and provided a  written  and  oral
presentation to his commander.  On 25 Sep 98,  after  consideration  of  all
the facts, his commander determined that he committed one  or  more  of  the
offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant.   He  was  ordered
to forfeit $3,230 pay per month for  2  months  and  was  reprimanded.   The
applicant appealed his punishment to HQ AMC/CV.  His appeal was denied.

On 19 Mar 99, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel  Council,  acting  on
behalf of the  Secretary,  determined  that  the  applicant  did  not  serve
satisfactorily in the grade of colonel and that he did serve  satisfactorily
in the grade of lieutenant colonel and directed that he be retired  in  that
grade.  The applicant retired on 31 Jul 99.  He served 27 years,  2  months,
and 11 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial.  JAJM states that the applicant contends  that
he never signed the AF Form 781 and therefore did not violate  Article  107.
However, Article 107 also makes it a crime for a  person  to  make  a  false
official statement, a provision not  requiring  an  actual  signing  by  the
person.  Conflicting evidence exists in this case.  It is  the  function  of
the finder of fact to weigh the evidence and reach a reasonable  conclusion.
 It was reasonable for the commander to conclude  that  the  weight  of  the
evidence  supported  a  finding  that  the  applicant  had  engaged  in  the
proscribed conduct.

An Article 15 is not a formal legal proceeding  with  the  attendant  formal
rules  of  charging,  proof,  and  evidence.   Its  purpose  is  to  provide
commanders with a prompt means of maintaining good order and discipline  and
of promoting positive behavior changes without the stigma of  court-martial,
where the offenses are relatively minor in nature.  The applicant  willingly
chose nonjudicial punishment proceedings, vesting  his  commander  with  the
authority to determine his guilt  or  innocence.   After  weighing  all  the
evidence, including the credibility of the various witnesses, the  commander
determined that there was  sufficient  evidence  to  conclude  that  he  had
committed the  offenses.   The  punishment  imposed  was  not  excessive  in
relation to the nature of the offense charged.  His  complaint  relies  with
the result, not the process.  The applicant's arguments failed  to  convince
the commander who imposed the punishment and the appellate  authority.   The
findings are neither arbitrary nor capricious and should not  be  disturbed.
When evidence of a clear error or injustice is missing,  it  is  clear  that
the BCMR process is not intended to simply second-guess the  appropriateness
of the judgments  of  field  commanders.   The  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence  of  a  clear  error  or  injustice  related  to  the   nonjudicial
punishment action.  The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states that close review of the 1999 SAF  Personnel  Board  decision
reveals that they do not address the defenses raised by the applicant,  they
simply ignore them.  They say that the applicant asserts that  he  completed
nine years satisfactory service as  a  colonel  but  they  assert  that  his
alleged misconduct covers several of those years.  This is irrelevant.   The
statute requires that he serve two years  satisfactorily  in  the  grade  of
colonel to retire in that grade.  None of the  allegations  against  him  go
back before 1995 and he pinned on colonel in 1989, giving him at  least  six
years of satisfactory service in that grade.

As for the allegation of signing a false AF Form 781, besides the fact  that
there was no evil intent, a copy of the 781  shows  that  his  signature  or
initials do not appear anywhere on the form.  Regarding the allegation  that
he failed to follow leave procedures, counsel states he  was  given  massive
responsibility for a group and  he  is  forced  to  rely  on  administrative
assistants because of the demands of his job.  Then he gets nailed  for  not
crossing every "T" and dotting every  "I."   Anyone  on  active  duty  knows
there is confusion about what the exact  rules  governing  leave  procedures
are.  Bottom line, why would anyone who routinely loses leave at the end  of
the fiscal year, bother to cheat on leave?   Regarding  the  restriction  on
attendance  at  the  ATA  conference,  counsel  states  that  the  applicant
mistakenly forgot to deduct the golf-day as a leave day.  He  lost  17  days
of leave that year anyway, what did he cheat the government out of?

Regarding the Article 15 and OGD issue, counsel states that the 89AW/CC  was
the reporting official at the time he applied for retirement, then  he,  not
the 21AF/CC should have initiated the OGD action.   In  that  case  all  the
recommendations would have been that he be allowed to retire as  a  colonel,
which presumably would have had an impact on the  decision.   The  commander
did not cross off any of the allegations on the Article  15  form.   By  not
doing so, those who made the decision to impose the grade  reduction  relied
on  the  belief  that  the  applicant  was  guilty   of   all   the   listed
misconduct...and if he was innocent of even one of them,  then  he  did  not
get fair consideration.

The JAJM review basically says that the commander was in the  best  position
to consider the evidence and the Board should not  second-guess  him.   JAJM
does admit that the applicant never signed the Form 781 but states that  his
alleged false statement would constitute a violation of Article 107.   There
is no evidence to rebut the applicant's  perfectly  reasonable  explanation.
The government apparently either could not or would not get statements  from
crew members or the Chief of Evaluation who both would  have  been  able  to
deny what the applicant stated if he were lying.  JAJM is  not  unreasonable
in saying the  commander  should  not  [normally]  be  second-guessed.   But
adequate evidence has been presented to show it would  not  be  unreasonable
for the Board to overrule the commander  under  the  circumstances  of  this
case.

The penalties imposed on the applicant are excessive when you  consider  the
comparatively minor nature of the alleged infractions and the literally  top
one percent career of the applicant.   In  particular,  the  OGD  action  in
addition to the Article 15 and humiliation of being publicly taken  off  the
BG  list  was  clearly  overkill.   Counsel's  complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action  on
the applicant’s  requests  for  setting  aside  the  nonjudicial  punishment
imposed upon him under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ); promoting him to the  grade  of  brigadier  general
with back pay and allowances; setting aside the Officer Grade  Determination
(OGD) which held that he had not  served  satisfactorily  in  the  grade  of
colonel; and he be placed in the position  he  would  have  been  in  if  no
action would have been taken against him.  Applicant contends that:

      a.  The OGD action was misused and he was not guilty of  the  offenses
charged in the Article 15.  He states it was his intention to have his  wife
and stepdaughter fly to Panama, on 2 January  1998,  while  he  flew  as  an
aircrew member on the same flight.  When learning he had to be  in  a  leave
status, he accomplished a leave form using the  same  leave  number  he  had
received for previously scheduled leave he had  taken  30-31 December  1997.
He simply extended the leave dates  on  the  original  leave  request.   Two
individuals witnessed his leave documentation and a copy was left  with  the
base dispatcher.  The applicant acknowledges he should  have  called  21  AF
and/or had someone in the Group sign his leave form.  He believed he was  in
a properly authorized leave status when he went to Panama.  Neither copy  of
his leave request -- for December  1997  or  January  1998  --  reached  the
orderly room.


      b.  During the trip from Robins AFB to Panama, the  applicant  chatted
with the boom operator when he was completing an AF Form 781,  mission  data
summary.  The applicant asked the boom operator to log  evaluator  time  for
him  (the  applicant)  because  the  applicant  wanted  to  write  a  formal
evaluation of the crew.  The boom operator informed the applicant  a  person
cannot  log  flight  time  while  in  leave  status.   The  applicant  being
unfamiliar with this rule, asked the boom operator to log the time  and  the
criteria for logging evaluator time would be determined  at  a  later  date.
After the flight, the Chief of Standardization and Evaluation at Robins  AFB
confirmed that flight time cannot be logged  while  in  leave  status.   The
applicant then asked that his name be removed from the AF  Form  781,  which
did not occur.  The  Article  15  alleges  the  applicant,  with  intent  to
deceive, signed an official document, to wit, the  AF  Form  781,  which  he
knew to be false.  The applicant argues he did not sign  the  document,  did
not make a statement on  the  form,  and  did  not  make  a  false  official
statement.


      c.  In October 1997, a one-day golf tournament  was  held  during  the
Airlift Tanker Association convention, which  the  applicant  attended  TDY.
An AMC guidance message informed  all  attending  the  three-day  convention
they should take leave if they  attended  the  golf  tournament.   When  the
applicant completed his travel voucher he forgot  to  annotate  the  day  of
leave.  He alleges his action was merely an oversight on his part and not  a
willful intent to disregard the ATA convention guidance.   He  contends  his
action was not a willful dereliction of duty.

4.  The Associate Chief, Military Justice  Division,  recommends  denial  of
the request to set aside the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,  UCMJ.
 He advises, in part, that the applicant contends he  never  signed  the  AF
Form 781 and therefore did not violate Art. 107.   However,  Art.  107  also
makes it a crime for  a  person  to  make  a  false  official  statement,  a
provision not requiring an actual signing by the person.  As  is  often  the
case, there exists conflicting evidence.  It is the function of  the  finder
of fact to weigh that evidence and reach a reasonable  conclusion.   It  was
reasonable for the commander to conclude that the  weight  of  the  evidence
supported a finding  that  the  applicant  had  engaged  in  the  proscribed
conduct.  The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division,  goes  on  to  say
that  applicant  made  his  election  to  resolve  the  allegation  in   the
nonjudicial forum after having been advised that his  commander  would  make
the  decision  whether  he  had  committed  the  offenses.   He  placed  the
responsibility with his commander to weigh all the evidence,  including  the
credibility of the various  witnesses,  and  make  a  decision,  instead  of
demanding his right to  trial  by  court-martial,  with  all  its  attendant
rights and formal procedure.  He chose instead to handle the  issue  in  the
less  formal  nonjudicial  punishment  forum,  with  its  much  less  severe
consequences.  In this case, the  commander  concluded  that  applicant  had
committed the offenses.  The Associate Chief states further that  there  was
sufficient evidence for the commander to  determine  the  offense  had  been
committed  and  applicant’s  arguments  clearly  failed  to   convince   the
commander who imposed punishment and the commander who reviewed his  appeal.
 While different fact finders may have come to a different  conclusion,  the
commanders’ findings are neither arbitrary nor capricious and should not  be
disturbed.

5.  On September 25, 1998, the applicant received the  Article  15  and  his
selection for promotion to brigadier general was subsequently canceled.   On
October 26, 1998, he submitted a request  for  voluntary  retirement  to  be
effective April 1, 1999.  On November 20, 1998, 21 AF/CC notified  him  that
the OGD was being initiated as a result of the Article  15  received  within
two years of his retirement application.  Had  he  waited  until  two  years
after receipt of the Article 15, an OGD would have been  at  the  discretion
of his command and may not have materialized.  In any event, the  Air  Force
Personnel Board was deeply impressed  with  the  applicant’s  duty  history,
which culminated in  his  selection  for  promotion  to  brigadier  general.
Nonetheless, the Board concluded that, had  his  misconduct  come  to  light
sooner, he would never have  been  selected  for  promotion  to  the  higher
grade, and, therefore, gave no weight to  his  claims  that  he  was  losing
$400,000 as a result of his lost promotion.  Finally, the  Board  considered
the  conflicting  recommendations  of  his  chain  of  command   and   their
supporting rationale.  After carefully reviewing these  factors,  the  Board
determined that applicant’s duty performance as a colonel, while  indicating
superior performance, was nevertheless outweighed by the seriousness of  his
misconduct and recommended that he be retired in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  The  Director,  Air  Force  Review  Boards  Agency,  approved  the
Personnel Board’s  recommendation and directed  the  applicant’s  retirement
in the grade of lieutenant colonel on June 1, 1999.

6.   Counsel  continues  to  argue  the  validity   of   the   substantiated
allegations against the applicant and argues that the OGD process  is  being
misused.  He also raises the argument about the possibility  of  a  vendetta
against the applicant  because  he  had  married  the  spouse  of  a  fellow
officer.  In addition, he points out the  disparate  treatment  between  the
applicant and General “R” who had an adulterous affair with the  wife  of  a
fellow  senior   officer.    Lastly,   he   challenges   the   Air   Force’s
interpretation  of  10  USC  1370.   Specifically,  he  believes  that   the
applicable statute requires only  six  months  of  satisfactory  service  in
grade to retire in that grade; and that since the applicant  had  over  nine
years in the grade of colonel, he cannot be reduced in grade.  On the  other
hand, the Office of The Judge Advocate General has stated  in  a  like  case
that the courts have repeatedly  rejected  this  interpretation  of  Section
1370 and other  similar  retirement  grade  statutes.   Six  months  is  the
minimum time in grade that  an  officer  must  serve  satisfactorily  before
becoming eligible for retirement in that grade.  It has no  other  relevance
to the OGD process.  For example, in the case of Randolph v. United  States,
179 Ct. Cl. 425,433 (1967), the court interpreted the Air  Force  retirement
statute predecessor to Section  1370,  concluding  that  the  Secretary  was
permitted to view Randolph’s entire  service  record  to  determine  if  his
performance was satisfactory in the higher temporary grade.  After 23  years
of total service in the Air Force, Randolph was  retired  at  the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel even though he had performed  satisfactorily  for  16  of
those  years  in  the  temporary  grade  of  colonel.   Months  before   his
retirement, however, Randolph had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor  charges  of
converting certain property for his own use.  He  had  argued  that  it  was
inconceivable that such an incident was of  sufficient  weight  to  overcome
the presumption of satisfactory service reflected by 23  years  of  spotless
performance evaluations.  However, the  court  permitted  the  Secretary  to
consider Randolph’s entire service in the temporary grade to  determine  his
retirement grade, rather than limiting the Secretary’s consideration to  his
first six months of service in his higher grade.

7.  The Office  of  The  Judge  Advocate  General  has  also  addressed  the
characterization of the  OGD  process  as  “punishment.”   That  office  has
stated that  the  Air  Force  has  long  taken  the  position  that  officer
promotions  are  not  rewards  for  past  performance.   Instead,  promotion
represents an appraisal of one’s potential to perform  in  more  challenging
positions.  Likewise, retirement in a lower grade is  not  “punishment”  for
misdeeds, but simply a  realignment  of  an  officer’s  rank  who  does  not
perform satisfactorily.  Contrary to the  apparently  widespread  perception
in the field of the grade determination statute, the truth is that a  single
but serious  deviation  from  minimum  standards  may  obviate  a  long  and
otherwise  satisfactory,  or  even  salutary,  period   of   service.    The
governmental interests in insuring that its  military  officers  perform  to
minimum standards are so strong that the interpretation  and  employment  of
the statute could not be otherwise.

8.  Counsel’s arguments that they have  good  reason  to  believe  that  the
initial complainants were not  motivated  by  an  honest  concern  that  the
applicant had committed an offense, but rather  they  were  motivated  by  a
desire to exact revenge for the  applicant’s  perceived  breaking  up  of  a
marriage and perhaps professional jealousy at  his  promotion  to  brigadier
general are duly noted.  Assuming arguendo that this is the case, unless  it
can be shown that the applicant was  wrongfully  accused,  we  do  not  find
these  assertions  particularly  relevant  to  the  issues  involved.    The
indisputable  fact  remains  that  the  allegations  were  investigated  and
substantiated  by  the  Office  of  the  Inspector  General.    Based   upon
substantiated  instances  of  seven  specific  incidents   of   impropriety,
competent authority deemed it appropriate to impose  nonjudicial  punishment
on the applicant (which he voluntarily accepted) and  initiate  action  that
resulted in his removal from the brigadier general selectee  list.  In  view
of the foregoing and in the absence of a showing that the  IG  investigation
was improperly influenced, we conclude 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.

9.  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 applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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  Docket  Number  BC-2002-00308
in Executive Session on 29 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Jun 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Feb 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/Personnel Board, dated 17 Mar 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 27 Feb 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Mar 03, w/atchs.



                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair