RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02532
                                        INDEX CODE:  110.02, 111.05,
                                        126.00, 131.02
                                        COUNSEL:  Mr. George E. Day



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His nonjudicial punishment under Article  15  of  the  Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ) be removed from his records and he be  refunded  the
$500 fine.

2.  His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 10 Feb 00 and 11  Feb  01
be removed from his records.

3.  His Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from his records.

4.  His selection for promotion to the grade of major effective 1 Nov 99  be
reinstated.

5.  His involuntary separation status be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was  falsely  and  unjustly  punished  and  was  illegally  charged  with
creating a hostile working environment.  There is  substantial  evidence  of
collusion and abuse of authority by the members in  his  chain  of  command.
The findings of a credentials hearing validated  that  he  was  falsely  and
unjustly punished under Article 15.  The undeniable result from  that  board
exonerated him of causing sexual harassment.

In September 1999, he was accused  of  sexual  harassment  by  Ms. -----,  a
civilian female nurse with a  history  of  filing  three  sexual  harassment
complaints at other military installations.  She accused  the  applicant  of
sexual harassment two days after he reprimanded her for practicing  medicine
without a license.  Ms. --- informed her female friends  she  was  going  to
file a complaint  and  asked  if  they  had  anything  to  say  which  would
corroborate her complaint.  Some of the possible witnesses  denied  that  he
was guilty of anything.  After she was  able  to  gather  support  from  her
friends, she circumvented her chain of command and went directly to Major --
-- with her allegations.  Major  ---,  who  works  directly  for  the  Group
Commander, personally escorted her to Lt Col -----, bypassing  three  layers
of supervision.  Without a preliminary inquiry into the complaint, Lt Col --
- suggested that Ms. --- file a sexual harassment complaint.   She  wrote  a
one page "informal" complaint.  As part of a "settlement agreement," Ms. ---
- voluntarily withdrew this complaint the day after she filed it.  Lt Col --
-  had  the  EEO  counselor  interview  Ms.  ---'s  corroborators.   Through
separate discussions with two of the corroborators it  was  discovered  that
after filing her complaint she told the  corroborators  the  questions  that
were going to  be  asked  during  their  interview.   Lt Col  ---  used  the
information obtained in the interviews and appointed  two  female  attorneys
to investigate the allegations.  The attorneys conducted 19 interviews  with
individuals in the Family Health Clinic and  wrote  all  of  the  summarized
statements for the witnesses interviewed, made the  conclusion  that  sexual
harassment occurred (even though no such  complaints  were  filed,  nor  did
anyone claim that they were a "victim" of sexual harassment or  maltreated);
and, drafted and signed off the Article 15  as  legally  sufficient.   Thus,
the lawyers were the accusers, witnesses,  and  approval  authority  of  the
charges violating the guidelines  of  the  Inspector  General  Investigation
Officer's Guide, which defines sexual harassment.  They decided his  actions
were sexual harassment, when the rules are clear that "Whether such  conduct
is unwelcome or not is based solely on the perception  of  the  victim"  not
the JAG.  Furthermore, the JAG  failed  to  consult  with  the  installation
experts on sexual harassment,  the  EEO  officer,  to  determine  if  sexual
harassment  occurred.   After  the  JAG  officers   concocted   the   sexual
harassment charges, the two female commanders along with the JAG refused  to
investigate  and  interview   the   applicant's   witnesses,   abusing   the
significant power of their offices to attack and destroy his  character  and
honor as an officer and medical clinician.  Clear evidence of  collusion  by
illegally piling the sexual harassment charges from his  Article  15  to  be
used against him  in  the  credentials  hearing.   According  to  Air  Force
regulations, adverse action and administrative/legal action must be  handled
separately.  The credentials hearing was judged  by  a  neutral  independent
board of three officers who concluded that "Based on a preponderance of  the
evidence...The government has not presented sufficient evidence to  conclude
that sexual harassment has occurred."  Exoneration at such a  low  level  of
proof obligates any conception that these charges would have  withstood  the
onslaught of a true investigation for such criminal allegations.   Regarding
the Article 15  charge  that  he  maltreated  Airman  First  Class  ----  by
grabbing his crotch and gesturing as if he was going to expose his penis  to
her, by slapping her on the buttocks with a charge-out sheet, by stating  to
her "I'm not talking about your nipple," or words to that effect,  when  she
was describing the size  of  a  patient's  mole,  and,  by  making  sexually
explicit and offensive comments in her presence, counsel  states  that  this
charge suggests that Airman --- filed a complaint; however, she never  filed
a complaint.  In her testimony during the credentials hearing she states  "I
wish I never told anyone about this, and do not wish  to  go  forward."   Lt
Col --- questioned her and attempted to persuade her  to  file  a  complaint
but she refused.  The Government did not call her  as  a  witness  and  only
used the summarized testimony.  Numerous individuals testified that she  did
not like the applicant and how she made rude and crude sexual  comments  and
gestures on a daily basis.  The credentials hearing members  concluded  that
he did not commit those particular  acts  as  accused.   A  portion  of  the
allegation was set-aside after the credentials hearing  with  the  exception
that he made "sexually explicit and  offensive  comments"  in  Airman  ---'s
presence.  Even though there is no evidence to support this charge.

Regarding  the  charge  that  he  maltreated  Airman  ---  by  rubbing   her
shoulders, by slapping her on the  buttocks  with  a  charge-out  sheet,  by
stating that his "balls hurt,"  and  by  gesturing  toward  his  crotch  and
responding "Yeah, I have a bar code," or words to that effect when asked  if
you had a document with a bar code,  counsel  states  this  charge  suggests
that Airman --- filed a complaint; however, she  never  filed  a  complaint.
In fact she provided him with four separate statements that  she  personally
wrote on his behalf.  She indicated she never felt intimidated  or  harassed
by the applicant and any comments he may have made were in no  way  intended
to harass or offend anyone.  She  indicated  that  she  did  not  feel  that
anything he may have said or done  could  have  created  a  hostile  working
environment.  Further, she felt that any statement that she made should  not
be used against him.  Airman --- was also asked by Lt Col --- to go  file  a
complaint against the applicant in order to help  their  case  against  him,
but she refused to do so.

Regarding the charge  that  he  maltreated  Staff  Sergeant  ---,  a  person
subject to his orders, by sticking his finger in her ear, poking her in  the
side, attempting to place his hand down her shirt, and  by  making  sexually
explicit and offensive comments in her presence, counsel  states  that  this
also suggests she filed a complaint against him;  she  did  not.   The  only
evidence provided by the Government was the summarized statement drafted  by
the JAG.  The  applicant  vehemently  denied  the  charges  against  him  in
relation to Sergeant ---.  Several witnesses have  submitted  statements  on
his behalf indicating she is a chronic liar and "one who would jump  on  the
band wagon to make herself look good."  The applicant denied a medical  body
fat waiver for her less than  a  week  prior  to  her  interview.   She  was
pending promotion to technical sergeant and the body fat waiver  would  have
allowed her a loop-hole to pin on her new rank.  As  with  Airman  ---,  the
Government did not call her to testify during the credentials hearing.   The
credentials committee concluded that he "Did not attempt to place  his  hand
down the shirt of a subordinate.”  The  only  evidence  was  her  summarized
statement, which was refuted by the applicant.  Lt Gen  ---  set  aside  the
portion of the charges that involved the allegation  that  he  attempted  to
place his hand down her shirt.  All the allegations  should  have  been  set
aside based on findings from the credentials committee who  "questioned  the
credibility" of Sergeant  ---.   It  is  counterintuitive  to  believe,  and
against human nature, that a liar  -  with  bias  and  motive  -  should  be
disregarded in some areas, but not others,  when  the  lies  themselves  are
unsupported and come from the same mouth.

Regarding the charge that he maltreated Ms. --- by hugging her from  behind,
rubbing her shoulders and back,  and  by  stating  to  her  "When  you  were
bending over, your ass looked so good" or  words  to  that  effect,  counsel
states that she filed an  informal  complaint  with  the  EEO  office.   She
claimed her first "negative encounter" with the applicant  occurred  10  May
99 when he entered Captain ---'s office and asked for sugar for his  coffee.
 She falsely claimed that he grabbed his genital area  and  said  "Oh,  I've
got my sugar right here."  She also wrote in  her  informal  complaint  that
she was talking with Captain --- in the hallway  near  her  office  and  the
applicant came up behind her and gave her a bear hug.  There  were  numerous
facts presented to dispute her allegations.  The  applicant  stated  he  has
never put sugar in his coffee.  In Capt ---'s statement,  she  stated,  that
she had no recollection of the applicant making this statement and that  she
would have remembered something in regards to that kind of statement.   This
testimony by Capt --- along with the applicant's statement  is  clear  proof
Ms. ----  fabricated  this  incident.   During  a  Supplemental  Preliminary
Inquiry Dr. --- was asked about the "bear hug" incident and  she  stated  "I
do not remember ever seeing him hug or touch Ms. ---."   Regarding  the  lie
by Ms. --- that the applicant told her "When you  were  bending  over,  your
ass looked so  good,"  she  even  contradicted  her  statements  during  the
credentials hearing when asked to talk about  the  incident.   She  replied,
"He said that when I was bent over he wanted to slap me on  the  ass."   The
final outcome from the credentials hearing committee was,  "No  witness  was
present to verify  the  allegation.   In  addition,  there  was  substantial
evidence presented by several individuals  which  questions  the  motivation
and truthfulness of Ms. ---."  Lt Gen. --- did not set aside  her  complaint
or the entire Article 15.  The applicant repeatedly told  his  entire  chain
of command from day one that  she  lied  about  him.   No  one  checked  her
history of false  complaints,  or  questioned  witnesses  who  disputed  her
stories.  The instant that the charges were heard, they were  refuted.   The
applicant was punished with an Article  15  for  charges  that  were  proven
false by the very first neutral listener.

Regarding the charge that he maltreated Ms. --- by attempting to  touch  her
left breast, by rubbing her shoulders, and  by  stating  to  her,  "I  can't
concentrate in church because of a 15-year-old girl with  short  shorts  and
large breasts," or words to that effect, counsel states  this  final  charge
stems from the summarized statement.  She did not file a  complaint  against
the applicant and was not called to testify during the  credentials  hearing
to validate her summarized statement.  The charge that he maltreated her  by
attempting to touch her left breast was set aside by Lt Gen ---.  Lt Gen ---
 did not set aside the other charges which were  addressed  in  the  Article
15, such as, "rubbing her shoulders," and his alleged statement to her  that
"I can't concentrate in church because of  a  15-year-old  girl  with  short
shorts and large breasts."  In his 25 Oct 99 written reply  to  the  Article
15 proceedings, he  provided  a  written  statement  by  Senior  Airman  ---
rebutting the church issue.  Airman --- stated to the applicant that he  was
trying to change his way of life and that he (---) was now attending  Church
but he (---) found it difficult to concentrate because  of  the  15-year-old
girls with short shorts and large breasts.  The applicant  told  Ms.  ---  a
patient mentioned to him  the  difficulties  he  was  having  and  gave  the
example --- gave him.  The Government did not call --- as a  witness.   This
portion of the charges was not listed as an allegation  in  the  credentials
hearing, thus the  committee  was  not  afforded  the  opportunity  to  hear
evidence of what was actually stated to Ms. ---.

These administrative charges were improperly and illegally given to Major --
- by Lt Col --- to increase the probability of guilt  into  the  credentials
board that, in fact, found that none of these  charges  were  substantiated,
and concluded Ms. --- was a liar.  The government did not produce  three  of
their six "witnesses" to testify.  Airman --- and Captain ---  (two  of  the
six) testified for the applicant refuting the very  charges  in  which  they
were named as victims.  As for the charges of  maltreating  subordinates  on
divers occasions by rubbing  their  backs,  squeezing  their  shoulders  and
hugging them, the credentials  committee  members  found  that  he  did  not
maltreat anyone.  They found  he  did  do  these  things,  but  only  "in  a
supportive, non-sexual manner."  Many of the character references that  were
written on his behalf stated  that  he  was  a  compassionate  and  friendly
individual.  Not a single individual  perceived  his  actions  to  be  of  a
sexual nature.  Clearly this was a misrepresentation of the facts by Lt  Col
--- and JAG.

According to  the  Inspector  General  Investigation  Officer's  Guide,  the
standard of proof for investigations is "Proof by  a  preponderance  of  the
evidence" and  "the  preponderance  standard  only  requires  that  you  are
satisfied that the greater weight of the  evidence  supports  your  findings
and conclusions."  JA interviewed 19 individuals  and  made  the  conclusion
sexual harassment occurred to six females.   Thus,  six  of  19  "summarized
statements" written by JAG gave them the justification to tell Lt  Col  ---,
"the  allegations  of  sexual   harassment   against   the   applicant   are
substantiated by numerous accounts  of  several  witnesses."   Meaning:  the
statements  by  two-thirds  of  the  individuals  ("greater  weight  of  the
evidence") who worked with the same six females were ignored.   Of  the  six
"witnesses"  identified  by  JAG  and  Lt  Col  ---,  two  provided  written
statements in his defense, three were not called  as  Government  witnesses,
and  the  main  complainant  lied  under  oath.   The  conclusion  was   not
justifiable and Lt Col ---  failed  to  investigate  conflicting  statements
against three of the six "witnesses."  Moreover, according to the Air  Force
Commander-Directed Investigation Guide, "The  Investigating  Officer  should
be trained to conduct thorough, unbiased investigations based  on  fair  and
objective fact-finding."  The record and facts make it clear  that  both  of
the JAG officers were impartial investigators,  and  the  results  of  their
investigation were clearly inconsistent with the  same  group  of  witnesses
that the JAG office brought  to  the  credentials  hearing.   The  impartial
board shot down every single charge that the JAG officers  concluded  to  be
"substantiated."  Testimony from the credentials hearing revealed Lt Col ---
 provided these two attorneys with  the  results  of  interviews  that  were
conducted by the EEO office four days prior to the JAG  interviews.   At  no
time were these women or any other witnesses asked  if  they  felt  sexually
harassed or maltreated by the applicant.  The witnesses stated that the  JAG
officers started their line of questioning with, "We  heard  that  you  have
information pertaining to the allegations of sexual harassment by Captain --
-."  The results  of  the  biased  and  tainted  investigation  by  the  JAG
officers demonstrate these two attorneys heard what  they  wanted  to  hear,
then turned a blind eye to the truth to formulate their conclusion.  Lt  Col
--- appointed the JAG officers to investigate and include conclusions  about
her suspicions the applicant sexually harassed his co-workers.  Lt  Col  ---
told two enlisted female witnesses to go file a complaint with  MEO,  as  it
would help them in the case against him.  This is  a  clear  departure  from
her duty to impartially investigate the  case,  and  make  charges  only  if
justified by the evidence.  The  injustices  continued  when  the  applicant
filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint against Lt Col --- for  submitting
a false official statement.  After consulting the JAG, the IG  replied  that
his allegation was  not  appropriate  for  IG  investigation  and  that  the
allegation fell under the purview  of  the  AFBCMR.   Sexual  harassment  is
clearly defined in Title 10, USC, as conduct (constituting  a  form  of  sex
discrimination)  that  involves  unwelcome  sexual  advances,  requests  for
sexual favors, and deliberate or repeated offensive comments or gestures  of
a  sexual  nature  when  the  effect   unreasonably   interferes   with   an
individual's work  performance  or  creates  an  intimidating,  hostile,  or
offensive working  environment,  and  is  so  severe  or  pervasive  that  a
reasonable person would perceive, and the victim  does  perceive,  the  work
environment as  hostile  or  offensive.   Not  a  single  female  identified
themselves as a "victim" or filed a formal  complaint  against  him  stating
that his alleged behavior was interfering  with  their  ability  to  perform
their duties or that he created an work environment that  was  perceived  to
be hostile, offensive, or  intimidating.   A  copy  of  his  appeal  to  his
Article 15 that was submitted during the credentials hearing  did  not  have
any of his character reference letters or seven other attachments.   Counsel
can only conclude the USAF/CV was  not  provided  a  complete  copy  of  the
applicant's appeal to his nonjudicial punishment,  clearly  a  violation  of
due process of the law in his defense against the illegal charges.

The applicant's supervisor from 15 Aug 98 through 5 Dec 99,  was  approached
by squadron leadership to sign a prepared OPR.  His supervisor states  in  a
letter that he did not write the OPR or the comments in section VI and  that
he did not and would not have marked "Does Not Meet  Standards"  in  section
V.  Clearly he was coerced  into  signing  the  referral  OPR.   He  further
states that he had no knowledge of the applicant's  alleged  offenses  prior
to his removal from the clinic.  His supervisor from 23 May  00  through  11
Feb 01, was coerced into  writing  the  referral  OPR  prior  to  the  final
outcome of the credentials hearing.  He has agreed to submit a  revised  OPR
and replace the current OPR because he was not afforded  an  opportunity  to
review the final outcome of the credentials hearing at the time the OPR  was
written.

The applicant went to AFPC to review his officer  selection  record  and  to
provide a written statement to the board  president.   Upon  review  of  his
selection file, he discovered that his  replies  to  his  referral  OPR  and
Article 15,  and  the  relevant  attachment  that  identifies  the  specific
portions of the Article 15 that were set aside were missing.  His  personnel
record at the Military Personnel Flight has all the illegal charges  blacked
out.  On his acknowledgement of receipt of the Article 15 that was  reviewed
by the promotion board, someone other than the applicant lined  through  the
word "have" under  his  endorsement,  indicating  that  he  did  not  attach
correspondence for the appellate authority to  consider.   As  a  result  of
these unethical tactics he was passed  over  for  promotion  and  forced  to
involuntarily separate from the Air Force.

In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief, a  letter
from his spouse,  documents  associated  with  his  nonjudicial  punishment,
documents associated with his referral OPRs, documents associated  with  his
credentials hearing,  documents  associated  with  the  Report  of  Inquiry,
documents associated  with  his  IG  complaint,  a  copy  of  his  OSR,  and
documents associated with his  selection  and  removal  from  the  promotion
list.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a prior service enlisted member, served various tours  as  an
active and Reserve member.  He was appointed a  second  lieutenant,  Reserve
of the Air Force on 7 May 90.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade
of captain, having assumed that grade effective, and with a date of rank  of
21 May 92.

On 21 Oct 99, the applicant was notified by his commander of her  intent  to
recommend imposition of nonjudicial  punishment  under  Article  15  of  the
UCMJ.  The specific reasons for this action were six allegations  of  sexual
maltreatment and making sexually explicit and offensive  comments.   He  was
advised of his rights  in  this  matter  and  acknowledged  receipt  of  the
notification on 29 Oct 99.  After consulting counsel, the  applicant  waived
his  right  to  demand  trial  by   court-martial,   accepted   Article   15
proceedings, and provided written and oral presentations to  his  commander.
On 6 Jan 00, 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  $1,500  pay  per
month for 2 months and was reprimanded.  The portion of the  pay  in  excess
of $250 per month was suspended for 6 months.  The  applicant  appealed  his
punishment to USAF/CV.  His appeal was denied.

A credentials hearing was conducted on 28 Nov 20 to address  18  allegations
of  professional  misconduct.   The  hearing  substantiated   six   of   the
allegations and recommended restriction of his privileges for a  minimum  of
six months,  direct  supervision  by  a  credentialed  provider,  additional
formal training in sexual harassment policies,  psychological  reevaluation,
and referral of his practice to the  commander  for  further  action  if  he
fails to complete the recommendations.   The  commander  did  not  take  any
adverse  privileging  action,  reinstated  his  clinical   privileges,   and
mandated additional training.
Subsequent to the credentials hearing,  the  imposing  commander  set  aside
that portion of the nonjudicial punishment which called for  forfeitures  of
pay in excess of $250 pay per month for  two  months.   He  amended  certain
portions of the  specifications  by  lining  out  those  portions  which  he
decided the applicant did not commit and left those  portions  intact  which
he still found the applicant committed.

The applicant was selected for promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  the
Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Major Central Selection Board.  On  21  Jun  99,
the Secretary of the Air Force removed his name from the  list  of  officers
selected for promotion by that board.  He was considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of  major  by  the  CY02  Major  Central  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 19 Feb 02.  He was not selected for promotion by that board  and
he  was  not  offered  selective  continuation.   As  a   result   of   this
nonselection, an involuntary separation date of 31 Dec 02  was  established.
The applicant was discharged on that date.

The applicant's recent OPR profile is as follows:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      10 Feb 02  Meets Standards (MS)
      10 Feb 01* Does Not Meet Standards
      10 Feb 00* Does Not Meet Standards
      26 Feb 99  Training Report
      07 Jan 99  MS
      12 Aug 98  Report Not Required
      27 Jun 98  MS
      27 Jun 97  MS
      27 Jun 96  Report Not Required
      3 Feb 95   MS

* - Contested Reports

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFMOA/SGZC recommends denial of applicant's request.  SGZC states  that  the
adverse privileging action was done according to Air Force  Instruction  44-
119.  It was appropriate and reasonable for  the  commander  to  investigate
the patient and coworker allegations of sexual harassment  and  professional
misconduct, since the possibility of patient harm was  evident.   To  ignore
these allegations would have been  negligent.   If  it  is  found  that  the
allegations were fallacious and the administrative actions are expunged,  it
would be appropriate to expunge  the  adverse  privileging  action  file  as
well.  The SGZC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of applicant's request.  JAJM states  that  the
imposing commander set aside part of the punishment  a  year  after  it  was
executed.  He set aside some of the findings by amending the  specifications
in an attachment to the set aside action.  No  guidance  exists  on  how  to
effect an imposing commander's decision, a year after an Article  15  action
was completed, to amend earlier findings that an offender committed  certain
offenses.  Lt Gen --- carefully considered  the  evidence  as  well  as  the
numerous documents submitted through  his  attorney.   In  fact,  before  he
decided whether to impose punishment, he raised  several  issues  about  the
applicant's situation.  In response, another inquiry was  conducted.   Among
the findings was corroboration that he did say something to  the  effect  of
"Yeah, I've got a bar code" while gesturing  to  his  crotch.   Lt  Gen  ---
wrote letters to the applicant's attorney  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Air
Force  outlining  his  reasons  for  amending  some  of  the  findings   and
recommending the applicant’s removal from the promotion list.  He  told  the
applicant's  attorney  that  he  agreed  to  review  a  transcript  of   the
credentials hearing  to  determine  whether  any  evidence  presented  would
persuade him to alter the Article  15  or  change  his  mind  regarding  the
removal from the promotion list recommendation.  In light  of  the  evidence
presented, he changed some of the findings in the  Article  15  and  altered
certain aspects of the promotion removal recommendation.   Specifically,  he
set aside certain Article 15 specifications, or portions of  specifications,
that were not  supported  by  the  evidence  presented  at  the  credentials
hearing.  Lt Gen  ---  considered  all  matters  to  absolutely  ensure  due
process.  The amended Article 15 and the promotion  removal  action  are  in
his judgment, still proper and supported by substantial evidence.

Unless his findings are either arbitrary or capricious, they should  not  be
disturbed just because others might disagree.  When evidence of an 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  commanders.
Commanders have first-hand access to facts and  a  unique  appreciation  for
the needs of morale and discipline in their command.  The issues  raised  by
the applicant and his attorney  are  not  with  the  process  but  with  the
result.  It is extraordinarily difficult to view Lt  Gen  ---'s  actions  as
other than reasoned and carefully considered.  JAJM is not persuaded by  the
applicant's contention that there is a conspiracy  to  harm  the  applicant.
While he places great weight in the contrary  findings  of  the  credentials
board,  those  findings  were  not  binding  on  decision  makers   in   the
nonjudicial punishment action.  While not required to  do  so,  Lt  Gen  ---
carefully  considered  the  transcript  and  conscientiously  modified   the
nonjudicial punishment action as  noted.   The  applicant  has  provided  no
evidence of a  clear  error  or  injustice.   However,  his  records  should
reflect Lt Gen ---'s decisions.   If  he  did  forfeit  pay,  he  should  be
reimbursed for any forfeitures in excess of $400.  The  JAJM  evaluation  is
at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant's request.   DPPP  states  that
the 10 Feb 00 OPR was marked down in  "Leadership  Skills  and  Professional
Qualities."  In the rater's comments the  rater  states  "During  this  time
period, member fell below AF standards; made sexually  explicit  remarks  to
coworkers  creating  a  hostile  working  environment;  counseled  regarding
interpersonal relations and communications."  The  additional  rater  states
"During this period, he was counseled for having created a  hostile  working
environment."  The credentials hearing substantiated four  allegations  that
he made sexually explicit remarks.  His attorney contends that  his  conduct
did not constitute sexual harassment, but the board reports  specifies  that
the actions "were not conduct amounting to sexual harassment of  a  civilian
nurse..."  It appears the committee did not  consider  whether  his  actions
created an  intimidating,  hostile,  or  offensive  work  environment.   The
Report of Inquiry substantiated sexual harassment.  It is important to  note
that the  rater's  comments  do  not  state  he  was  counseled  for  sexual
harassment, but for "having created a hostile working environment."   Unlike
the term "sexual harassment," use of the  term  "hostile  environment"  does
not require the user to meet any legal standards or definitions.

The 10 Feb 01 OPR was referred  due  to  Section  V  being  marked  down  in
"Judgment Decisions."  The rater states he "Demonstrated poor judgment  when
he exposed his genitals to a female  provider  while  seeking  a  non-urgent
medical opinion without an appointment and  without  a  chaperone  present."
The additional rater states he "Obtained informal genital exam  from  female
provider--propriety of request questionable--received LOA.  Single  incident
occurred in time of close scrutiny  ...decision-making  under  circumstances
unwise."  The credentials hearing committee considered the  allegation  that
he wrongfully exposed his penis to a co-worker"  and  was  split  2-1.   The
majority found that it was wrongful exposure.  The  dissenting  member  felt
that the provider's agreement to  examine  him  created  a  patient/provider
relationship and therefore the exposure was not wrongful.  The OPR does  not
state that he wrongfully  exposed  himself.   It  states  that  he  unwisely
obtained an informal exam of his genitals in a manner, and at a  time,  that
showed poor judgment.

The rater submitted a  letter  of  support  stating  "Had  I  known  that  a
privileging hearing would exonerate [the applicant]  of  these  professional
charges I would not have signed off on the OPR."  However, the  hearing  did
not exonerate the applicant; it substantiated the  charge  as  mentioned  in
the report.  Although the rater  states  that  he  would  have  written  the
report differently had he known the results of the  hearing  committee,  the
comments of  the  OPR  actually  closely  mirror  the  committee's  findings
written months later.  The applicant's attorney's claims that the  applicant
was exonerated in 17 of the 18  charges  is  misleading.   Four  allegations
were determined to be substantiated, but the committee ruled  they  did  not
impact patient care or breach the standard of conduct.  Finding 18,  by  2-1
split vote, was found to be substantiated, with additional findings that  he
breached the standard of conduct and that the incident had the potential  to
adversely affect patient care.

There is an allegation of coercion, or improper command  influence,  in  the
writing of both OPRs.  The 10 Feb  00  rater  states  that  he  had  minimal
involvement in writing the report and did not write  the  rater's  comments.
However, he does admit that he had access to the investigation material  and
does not state that he felt  he  did  not  have  sufficient  information  to
render a fair and accurate assessment.  The rater of the 10  Feb  01  report
explains he believed the incident was a  patient/provider  consultation  and
had left the incident off the report until after  a  consultation  with  the
JA.  In order to show coercion there must be clear evidence proving  that  a
superior violated the evaluator's rating rights.  Raters  are  charged  with
acquiring  information  from  as  many  sources  as  possible  in  preparing
performance reports, and  evaluators  who  change  their  evaluations  after
talking with superiors have not necessarily  been  coerced.   Neither  rater
claims they were coerced and no evidence exists to show coercion.  In  fact,
the rater of the 10 Feb 00 OPR admits that he simply "followed the lead"  of
his supervisors.  The 10 Feb 01 rater states  that  he  "felt  compelled  to
sign off on the referral OPR."

The reports in question were processed in  accordance  with  the  applicable
instructions.  A commander  directed  investigation  as  well  as  a  formal
hearing within the applicant's community have substantiated  the  statements
contained in the reports.  The reports are neither  inaccurate  nor  unjust.
The DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPRS  states  his
discharge was consistent with the procedural  and  substantive  requirements
of the discharge regulation and the Uniform Code of Military  Justice.   AFI
36-3207 does not allow for  extension  of  an  active  duty  officer  unless
action has been taken with a view to  trial  by  court-martial.   The  DPPRS
evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant's request.  DPPPO states  that
both Congress and DoD have made clear their  intent  that  when  errors  are
perceived to ultimately effect  promotion,  they  should  be  addressed  and
resolved through the use of special selection boards (SSBs).  Based  on  the
evidence provided,  DPPPO  recommends  denial  of  his  request  for  direct
promotion.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The majority of  the  JAJM  memorandum  is  devoted  to  policy  of  issuing
nonjudicial punishment and he fails to respond to the injustices created  by
the --th Special Operations  Wing  Judge  Advocate  and  Air  Force  Special
Operations Command Judge Advocate.   Evidence  previously  provided  clearly
identified plain misconduct by the JA.  Any minimal unbiased  inquiry  would
have shown that the applicant did not sexually harass  anyone.   The  United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC)  Policy  Guidance  on
Current Issues of Sexual Harassment also recognizes  that  unwelcome  sexual
conduct that unreasonably interferes with an  individual's  job  performance
or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive  working  environment  can
constitute sex discrimination, even if it leads to no tangible  or  economic
job consequences.  There are absolutely no records or evidence  to  indicate
any individual in the --th Medical Group could not perform his  or  her  job
due to unwelcome sexual conduct.  Furthermore, there  are  no  documents  or
statements by anyone that he created a hostile,  intimidating  or  offensive
environment.   The  applicant  did  submit  documents  which  reflected   no
evidence of sexual harassment during the period 1 Mar 99 through 23 Sep  99.
 Applicant also submitted 11 letters from  individuals  who  worked  in  the
Family Practice Clinic during this period which stated he did not  create  a
hostile, intimidating, or  offensive  environment.   Moreover,  another  key
factor noted by the EEO in determining if sexual harassment  occurred,  "The
harasser's conduct must be unwelcome."  The government did  not  submit  any
evidence indicating his  alleged  comments  were  unwelcome.   He  submitted
letters  and  testimony  by  individuals  who  the  government   listed   as
"complainants" stating  they  were  never  offended  by  any  statements  or
actions.  No one confirmed the JAG charges except the  JAG.   JAJM  neglects
to show the partiality of the --  SOW/JA  and  AFSOC/JA.   Lt  Gen  ---  was
significantly influenced by information he received by the JAGs.  Lt Col ---
 submitted a memorandum with 18 false statements through the JAG  after  his
interview with Lt Gen ---.  A commander's word carries an incredible  amount
of weight with senior leadership.  In the end, Lt  Gen  ---'s  decision  was
based on the applicant's word against Lt Col  ---'s.   The  JAG  recommended
two of his female Staff Judge Advocates to conduct  the  initial  interviews
and then he appointed another female officer  to  conduct  a  "supplemental"
inquiry.  Her report rehashed the same information from the  JAG  report  of
inquiry dated 30 Sep 99.  The applicant was never contacted  or  interviewed
during her supplemental inquiry.  Her additional  "clarification"  statement
by A1C ---l hearing.  AlC ---- was not called as a government witness.

The applicant was denied due process when he submitted  his  appeal  package
to the nonjudicial punishment on 25 Jan 00. There  is  significant  evidence
that an incomplete appeal package was forwarded to the appellate  authority.
 The omission of these documents means that the Vice  Chief  review  process
was compromised.  This alone conflicts with comments of the  author  of  the
legal advisory opinion that "So long as they are lawfully acting within  the
scope of authority granted them by  law..."  Omitting  23  documents  in  an
appeal package is not acting "within the scope" of the law.  JAJM  fails  to
dispute the charges of fraud by the JAG for failing to submit the set  aside
portions of the nonjudicial punishment in his promotion package as  well  as
his personnel file in the local MPF and refund portions of  his  $500  fine.
Also, JAJM fails to comment on the illegal actions of altering  an  official
document by JAG and not submitting the  applicant's  appeal  to  his  second
referral OPR in his February 2002 promotion  file.   JAJM's  statement  that
"The applicant refused to sign an acknowledgement that he had seen  the  set
aside action" is a false statement and a  misrepresentation  of  the  facts.
The applicant went  to  consult  counsel  prior  to  signing  it.   When  he
returned to sign it, he was informed that his commander  had  already  typed
in, "Member refused to sign  until  he  can  review  and  discuss  with  his
attorney."  His leadership fabricated the  18  allegations  of  professional
misconduct.  Of the 18 allegations, 14  came  directly  from  Lt  Col  ---'s
nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant had  $500  withheld  from  his  April
2000 paycheck.

SGZC fails to note that the Medical Group Commander, Colonel ---,  signed  a
notification of revocation of privileges letter with four  allegations.   On
25 Jul 00, Major --- signed a notification of hearing  with  18  allegations
listed.   Lt  Col  ---  personally   gave   Major   ---   these   additional
administrative charges to pile on the initial four.  The  sexual  harassment
allegations were fabricated and Major ---  and  Lt  Col  ---  escalated  the
allegations to eliminate the applicant.  He was well liked by  the  majority
of his coworkers and received numerous "kudos" from patients.   At  no  time
was a patient "at risk."  Many of his  patients  wrote  character  reference
letters on his behalf.  Lt Col --- and  Major  ---  illegally  engineered  a
credentials  board  in  order  to  revoke  his  medical  credentials.   They
illegally listed the 14 administrative charges in violation of  AFI  44-119.
The three medical providers who sat on the credentials board were the  first
impartial board that  heard  the  14  sexual  harassment  charges.   He  was
acquitted of sexual harassment on every charge.   What  SGCZ  determines  as
"substantiated" are half-truths.  For example, the charge of hitting  Airman
--- on the rear end with a charge out folder did occur.  What  SGZC  is  not
identifying,  is  that  Airman  ---  herself  said  this  incident  was  "an
accident."  Same for the "bar code" incident, Airman --- stated under  oath,
he was getting his ID card out of his front pocket.  The  JAG  twisted  this
information  to  imply  he  was  grabbing  his  genitalia.   Finally,   SGZC
addresses administrative issues in her memorandum, which have  no  basis  on
credentialing.  His  credentials  were  reinstated  simply  because  he  did
nothing  inappropriate  and  patients  were  not  at  risk.   The  commander
maintained the  "company  line"  and  commented  on  the  sexual  harassment
allegations even though there was no evidence from the  credentials  hearing
to support he sexually harassed  anyone.   His  decision  to  reinstate  the
applicant's credentials was based on his meeting  the  medical  standard  of
care, not administrative issues.

The facts as they pertain to the first OPR dated 10  Feb  00  are:  (1)  The
rater was not given any documents which my client submitted in his  defense;
(2) there are no records indicating my client was "counseled" by  the  rater
or endorsing rater; (3) the rater did not  write  the  OPR  as  required  by
AFI's 36-2402 and 36-2406, and (4) there  were  no  complainants  of  sexual
harassment or complainants charging  my  client  with  creating  a  hostile,
offensive, intimidating environment.  Lt Col --- presented  the  rater  with
the Report  of  Inquiry  in  which  the  JAG  wrote  and  determined  sexual
harassment occurred.   The rater was not given a copy of his  reply  to  the
nonjudicial punishment in which he  vehemently  denied  causing  a  hostile,
intimidating, offensive environment.   Basically,  the  rater  was  given  a
stacked deck against  the  applicant.   This  is  clearly  improper  command
influence.  As for the OPR dated 10 Feb 01, the rater clearly states  if  he
had had the  results  of  the  credentials  hearing  and  the  fact  he  was
identified as a patient  seeking  medical  advice  from  a  board  certified
medical provider, he would not have made the OPR  a  referral  report.   The
commander agreed with the dissenting member of the credential board that  it
was a patient/provider encounter.  The rater was waiting on the  commander's
decision on this topic prior to signing  the  OPR.   The  rater  states  the
commander referred him to the JAG who "highly  encouraged"  him  to  make  a
comment on the OPR about "poor judgment."  DPPP states that allegations  11-
14 were substantiated by the credentials board.   This  is  not  true.   The
four allegations that she is referring to dealt with  conversations  between
the applicant and Airman ---.  Airman --- testified and stated nothing  said
to her was ever interpreted as sexual harassment.  She also wrote  a  letter
stating he did not create a hostile,  offensive,  intimidating  environment.
Simply  put,  these  allegations  are  not  from  "complainants,"  they  are
fictitious complaints derived from the JAG's conflict of  interest  in  this
case.  Statements were  taken  out  of  context  in  order  to  crucify  the
applicant.  The nonjudicial punishment was unwarranted simply because  there
were no complainants or records to indicate he sexually harassed  anyone  or
created a hostile, intimidating,  offensive  environment.   Nowhere  in  the
Government's opinions has anyone from the military or civilian  EEO  offices
provided an expert opinion on this case.   This  case  comes  down  to  poor
leadership and failure to investigate all the  facts  of  this  case  in  an
impartial manner.

In further support of his request, applicant provided his  counsel's  brief,
EEOC Form 106, a copy of his April 2000 Leave  and  Earnings  Statement,  an
email communication, and a draft  of  his  10  Feb  01  OPR.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S APPEARANCE AT FORMAL HEARING:

1.  The applicant appeared before the Board with counsel and his  spouse  as
a witness and testified under oath.  During  the  hearing  counsel  and  the
applicant  reiterated  their  previous  contentions  that  the   applicant's
complaint is that he has been denied substantive due process, the  right  to
an Air Force commission and active duty as an Air  Force  officer  based  on
some very basic denials of procedural process.  Counsel contended  that  the
medical facility at Hurlburt Field employed improper procedures,  failed  to
investigate  the  case,  pursued  some  issues  that  were   prohibited   by
regulation from pursuing, conducted some of the activities on the  basis  of
a personality complaint, and that applicant's commander, in  appointing  two
legal members, basically functioned as the sheriff, the prosecutor, and  the
judge  in  this  case,  brought  forth  evidence   which   was   incomplete,
uncorroborated, unsigned, and basically converted  an  administrative  issue
into a criminal case.

2.  The  following  additional  information  was  provided  in  response  to
specific inquiries by the Board members:

      a.  Response to  the  question  as  to  why  his  supervisor  did  not
intercede during the investigative process, applicant stated  the  complaint
was filed on  September  20,  and  on  September  23,  he  was  notified  by
Lieutenant Colonel L--- that he was relieved of his duties  in  the  clinic.
When he asked why, he was told  "This  conversation  is  over.  Contact  the
ADC."  He contacted his immediate supervisor and flight  commander  and  was
told by both that they had no knowledge of what was going  on.   His  flight
commander and supervisor were spoken to by Lieutenant  Colonel  L  and  told
not to say anything.

      b.  When asked what advice he was given by the  Area  Defense  Counsel
(ADC) to accept the Article 15 proceedings in lieu of court-martial  action,
applicant stated that the ADC was not immediately  available.   He  was  not
advised of the charges against him until October 11,  after  an  ADC  became
available and advised him of the charges.  He initially insisted  on  court-
martial proceedings but his  counsel  advised  him  that  he  should  accept
Article 15 proceedings because if the court-martial found him guilty  of  at
least  one  of  the  allegations  it  could  result  in  his  administrative
separation from the Air Force.  At the time he was unaware of  Major  P---'s
accusations that he was a troublemaker that was causing dissention and  felt
that he could trust the leadership to make an  unbiased  and  fair  decision
with all the evidence  presented.   After  a  year  and  a  half  of  asking
thousands of  questions  and  through  Freedom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA)
requests he was able to  determine  that  the  actions  of  Major  P---  and
Lieutenant Colonel L--- were the root of the problems.

      c.  When asked to elaborate concerning the issue that he performed  an
examination without a chaperone present and why it took  Airman  F---  eight
months to state that she had been in the room, applicant responded  that  he
was told by Airman F--- that during the course of the investigation  no  one
questioned her at all or asked her whether or  not  she  was  present  as  a
chaperone. She was unaware that an investigation  was  going  on.   She  was
aware that he was to see males only and that the examination was  an  issue.
Applicant stated that he told investigators that she was present  but  those
that performed the internal investigation and the OSI investigators did  not
contact her at all.


      d.  When asked if Colonel S--- was  aware  that  he  had  a  chaperone
present, applicant responded that  while  performing  Colonel  S---'s  cycle
ergometry test he spoke with him and told him that a chaperone  was  present
during the examination.  Colonel S--- advised him that he had  no  knowledge
that a chaperone was present.  He advised Colonel S---  that  the  chaperone
was Airman F---  who  had  been  kicked  out  of  the  Air  Force.   Shortly
thereafter, Colonel S--- PCS'd to Little  Rock  AFB  and  nothing  was  done
about the Article 15.  Applicant added that prior to  that  conversation  he
was not allowed to speak to Colonel S--- unless  he  went  through  the  JAG
first.  He had to submit all questions to Colonel S--- and to  General  B---
in writing to the JAG.  He was never afforded the opportunity to speak  with
them.

      e.  When asked to address the Article 15 issues and how  they  related
to the credentials hearing, applicant responded that in accordance with  AFI
44-119, paragraph 7.6, the administrative issues were  not  supposed  to  be
part of the credentialing hearing.   He  was  initially  advised  that  four
allegations were being considered.  Additional allegations  were  introduced
by Major P--- and Lieutenant Colonel L---and allowed to remain by Colonel E-
--, bringing the total issues under review to  18.   To  his  benefit  every
allegation was addressed, and harassment  and  the  creation  of  a  hostile
environment was found unsubstantiated.

      f.  When asked to address the LOC he received from Lieutenant  Colonel
L---, applicant responded that Lieutenant Colonel L---  implied  during  the
hearing and to General B--- that he  failed  to  follow  Group  instructions
concerning third-party chaperones, but he did not.  The LOC states  that  he
needed to be made aware of  third-party  chaperone  rules  and  follow  that
guideline.   It  does  not  state  that  he  failed  chaperone   guidelines.
Applicant stated that he was  told  by  Lieutenant  Colonel  L---  that  the
purpose of the LOC was "Because an investigation was conducted,  I  have  to
give you this LOC."

Applicant's complete  sworn  testimony  and  his  response  to  the  Board's
questions are contained in the Transcript of Proceedings at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  After  carefully  assessing  the  applicant's   sworn   testimony,   his
responses to pertinent questions, the evidence  of  record,  and  additional
documentation submitted, the Board finds that sufficient  relevant  evidence
has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or  injustice  that
warrants corrective action.

4.  With respect to his Article 15 punishment,  the  Board  notes  that  the
basis for the Article 15 punishment was allegations of  sexual  maltreatment
and making  sexually  explicit  and  offensive  comments.   The  allegations
stemmed from a complaint  made  by  Ms. S---  to  Major  P---  accusing  the
applicant of sexual behavior.  It is the Board's opinion that  by  reporting
the incident to Major  P---,  who  was  not  in  the  applicant's  chain  of
command, Ms. S--- did not follow proper reporting procedures.  In  addition,
it appears that the subsequent investigation into the matter,  initiated  by
Lieutenant Colonel L---, which consisted essentially of the interviewing  of
numerous witnesses by two officers assigned to the JAG office was  improper.
 This matter was further compounded by  the  failure  of  the  investigating
officers  to  follow  proper  investigative   procedures.    They   provided
summarized statements of the individuals  they  interviewed,  without  their
knowledge.   Further,  it  is  important  to  note  that  several  of  these
individuals have refuted the allegations made in the summarized  statements.
 We find that there was no legal  basis  upon  which  to  proceed  with  the
allegations of sexual harassment in the absence of  actual  complaints  from
those that were interviewed.  The Board further noted that  the  credentials
hearing committee concluded  that  all  but  six  of  the  allegations  were
unsubstantiated.

5.  The Board further noted that as a result of the findings of the  adverse
action committee  and  at  the  request  of  the  applicant's  counsel,  the
imposing commander reviewed the actions taken against the applicant.   After
reviewing the documentation presented,  the  commander  made  a  commendable
effort to ascertain  the  facts  of  the  issues  at  hand  and  ensure  the
applicant was provided proper  due  process.   After  an  investigation  and
based on the information he was provided,  he  amended  the  Article  15  by
setting aside a portion  of  the  punishment  and  findings.   However,  the
commander determined that both the amended  Article  15  and  the  promotion
removal action were supported  by  the  evidence.   Based  on  the  evidence
provided  by  the  applicant,  we  are  persuaded  that  the  commander  was
misinformed  and  information  that  could  have  proven  favorable  to  the
applicant was not provided to him, further perpetuating the appearance  that
the deck was inappropriately being stacked against the applicant.

6.  In view of the above findings, the Board  majority  strongly  recommends
that the Article 15 be declared void and expunged from applicant's  records.
 The Board unanimously believes that the decision to  remove  the  applicant
from the promotion list, and provide him a referral OPR and establish a  UIF
were the direct result of the aforementioned Article 15 action.   Thus,  the
Board believes that they should be removed as well.  While his  OPR  closing
11 Feb 01, was not a direct result of  the  Article  15  action,  the  Board
believes that since the incident which led  to  the  referral  comments  was
directly associated with the Article 15 action, removal of  that  report  is
appropriate.  In order to ensure the applicant receives fair  and  equitable
future promotion consideration,  we  believe  it  would  be  appropriate  to
recommend that prior  to  his  consideration  for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel in-the-primary zone, he should receive a minimum of two annual  OPRs
with at least 250 days of supervision in the grade of  major.   Accordingly,
the Board majority recommends that his records  be  corrected  as  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________



THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.  The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15,  UCMJ,  initiated  on
21 October 1999 and imposed on 6 January 2000, be  set  aside  and  expunged
from his records, and all rights, privileges, and property of which  he  may
have been deprived be restored.

      b.  The AF Forms 707B,  Company  Grade  Officer  Performance  Reports,
rendered for the periods 9 January 1999 through  10 February  2000,  and  11
February 2000 through 10 February 2001, be declared void  and  removed  from
his records.

       c.  The  Unfavorable  Information  File   (UIF),   to   include   all
documentation contained therein, be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his
records.

      d.  He was not discharged from the Air Force on 31 December 2002,  but
on that date he continued to serve on extended active duty and  was  ordered
permanent change  of  station  (PCS)  to  his  home  of  selection  for  the
convenience of the government.

      e.  His name was not removed from the list  of  officers  selected  by
the Calendar Year 1999A Major Selection Board.

      f.  He was promoted to the grade of major with  a  date  of  rank  and
effective date of 1 November 1999.

      g.  Any  nonselections  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel in-the-primary zone prior to receiving  a  minimum  of  two  Officer
Performance Reports with at least 250 days of supervision, in the  grade  of
major, be set aside.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
02532 in a Formal Hearing on 7 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
      Mr. Albert J. Starnes, Member
      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
      Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member

By a majority vote,  the  Board  recommended  approval  of  the  applicant's
requests.  Mr. Roj and Mr. Starnes voted to grant the  applicant's  requests
with the stipulation that the Article 15 be  removed  from  the  applicant's
selection folder but not from his permanent  records,  and  elected  not  to
submit a minority report.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMOA/SGZC, dated 8 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 5 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Dec 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 16 Dec 02.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Dec 02.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 02.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Transcript of Proceedings.




                             CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                             Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2002-02532




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:

            a.  The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ,
initiated on 21 October 1999 and imposed on 6 January 2000, be set aside
and expunged from his records, and all rights, privileges, and property of
which he may have been deprived be, and hereby are restored.

            b.  The AF Forms 707B, Company Grade Officer Performance
Reports, rendered for the periods 9 January 1999 through 10 February 2000,
and 11 February 2000 through 10 February 2001, be , and hereby are,
declared void and removed from his records.

            c.  The Unfavorable Information File (UIF), to include all
documentation contained therein, be declared void and removed from his
records.

            d.  He was not discharged from the Air Force on 31 December
2002, but on that date he was continued to serve on extended active duty
and was ordered permanent change of station (PCS) to his home of selection
for the convenience of the government.

            e.  His name was not removed from the list of officers selected
by the Calendar Year 1999A Major Selection Board.

            f.  He was promoted to the grade of major with a date of rank
and effective date of 1 November 1999.

            g.  Any nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel in-the-primary zone prior to receiving a minimum of two Officer
Performance Reports with at least 250 days of supervision, in the grade of
major, be, and hereby are, set aside.





  JOE G. LINEBERGER

  Director

  Air Force Review Boards Agency