ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02770
                                             INDEX CODE 111.01  111.05
                                             COUNSEL:  None

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant’s appeal for reconsideration, he  requests  that  the
referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) for  the  period  23 Nov  99
through 15 Jun 00 be voided.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of major and is assigned at Langley AFB, VA. During  the  period
in question, he was assigned to McClellan AFB, CA. He was selected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel  (LTC)  by  the  Calendar  Year  1999B
(CY99B) board, to be effective 1 Jul 00. However, due  to  allegations
of improper conduct and unprofessional  relationships,  the  applicant
came under command scrutiny in an internal  inquiry  and  subsequently
received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 11 Jan 00. He then became  the
subject of an Air  Force  Office  of  Special  Investigations  (AFOSI)
investigation for alleged fraternization  and  other  misconduct.  His
promotion was delayed pending the investigation  and  he  was  removed
from command. The contested OPR was referred to him on 22 Jun  00.  An
Article 32 investigation was also conducted sometime  in  Aug-Sep  00.
[Note: The Article 32 Report of  Investigation  (ROI)  apparently  was
lost or destroyed when McClellan AFB was  closed.  As  a  result,  the
investigating officer’s (IO) findings and recommendations were unknown
when the Board initially considered this case.]  On  24  Oct  00,  the
applicant  was  served  an  Article  15   for   various   charges   of
unprofessional/improper conduct. As a result, the Secretary of the Air
Force (SAF) removed the applicant’s name from the CY99B  LTC  selectee
list on 11 Jun 01. The applicant was considered but  not  selected  by
the CY01B and CY02B LTC boards.

The applicant submitted an appeal to the AFBCMR; however, his case was
denied by the Board on 7 Jan 03.  For an accounting of the  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the  applicant’s  original  appeal  and  the
rationale of the earlier decision by the  Board,  see  the  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit F.

In a letter dated 17 Mar 03, the applicant declared  his  astonishment
that, as indicated in the Record of Proceedings’  (ROP)  Statement  of
Facts, the Article 32 ROI  apparently  was  no  longer  available.  He
discussed his various issues with the investigations, the OPR, and the
ROP. He stated the OPR is unjust and  untrue  because  he  never  made
false official statements, never failed to enforce underage  drinking,
and never received feedback consistent with Air Force instructions. He
contended the OPR was rendered before an  on-going  investigation  was
completed. Further, as of its referral date, he was not  charged  with
any offense, not provided any investigative report  or  evidence,  and
not given feedback or a forum in which to defend  himself.  Among  the
documents submitted in his reconsideration request were what  appeared
to be portions of the Article 32 ROI. Also included was  a  4  Oct  00
letter from the 77th Air Base Wing (77 ABW)  commander  notifying  the
applicant that the charges and specifications preferred against him on
6 Jul 00 and the additional  charges  preferred  on  20  Sep  00  were
dismissed.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit G.

Since the Article 32 ROI  was  not  obtainable  when  the  applicant’s
appeal was first reviewed and based on what appeared to be excerpts of
the ROI in his latest submission,  on  28  Mar  03  the  AFBCMR  Staff
requested he provide a complete copy of the Article  32  ROI  for  the
Board  to  examine  when  his   case   was   reviewed   for   possible
reconsideration. The applicant’s case was held in abeyance for 30 days
in order for him to respond.

On 24 Apr 03, the applicant advised he did not have a complete copy of
the Article 32 ROI, despite his unsuccessful requests for  it  through
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  He indicated he has  seen  the
entire report but only had a partial copy to study while preparing for
his legal  response,  post-Article  32  proceedings.   He  provided  a
partial copy of the ROI, which he asserted is all he has. He amplified
what he believes is a key point of  the  Article  32  proceedings.  He
contended the investigating officer’s (IO) recommendations were  based
on the preponderance (50.1%) of evidence. All but one of  the  witness
testimonies came from government witnesses during the proceedings.  As
he did not make any statements to rebut  or  refute  those  government
witnesses,  the  evidence   provided   satisfied   the   preponderance
threshold. Also provided is a 4 Oct 00 letter from the wing  commander
dismissing the charges that had been preferred to  the  applicant  and
that the Article 32 ROI investigating officer (IO) had recommended for
trial by general court-martial.

A complete copy of the applicant’s submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit I.

The following information was extracted from the documents provided by
the applicant at Exhibit I:

The incomplete Article 32 ROI  is  dated  14  Sep  00  and  apparently
pertains  to  charges  preferred  on  6  Jul  00.   Essentially,   the
investigating officer (IO) appears to have believed the applicant  was
guilty of fraternization (intercourse) with one female staff  sergeant
based on her admission and credibility,  but  he  was  not  guilty  of
fraternization (intercourse and  improper  behavior)  with  an  airman
first  class  (A1C)  based  on  her  and  another  witness’s  lack  of
credibility. The  IO  also  concluded  the  applicant  was  guilty  of
fraternization (supplying/drinking  alcohol  and  socializing  at  the
dormitories and other non-official gatherings) with enlisted  members,
some of whom were under the legal drinking age.  The IO also concluded
that the applicant pulled a female senior airman’s shirt over her head
at a party without her permission, exhibited  conduct  unbecoming  and
officer, obstructed justice  based  on  conversations  with  two  A1Cs
concerning the internal  investigation,  and  made  a  false  official
statement during the course  of  an  internal  investigation.  The  IO
recommended trial by  general  court-martial.  Based  on  the  77  ABW
commander’s 4 Oct 00 letter, the charges were dismissed and, on 24 Oct
00, the applicant received the Article 15.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After a thorough review of the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant’s
submission, we remain unconvinced that he was the victim of either  an
error or an injustice.   While  the  entire  Article  32  ROI  remains
unavailable, we conclude the contested OPR and  the  Article  15  were
appropriate and sustainable based upon the evidence  supplied  by  the
existing record and the applicant himself, as well as the  presumption
of regularity in the conduct of governmental  affairs.  The  applicant
still has not established to our satisfaction that the  basis  of  the
rating chain’s judgment was unfounded or indefensible.  Indeed,  based
on similar cases before this Board, we believe  the  applicant  should
count himself fortunate in being  retained  on  active  duty.  As  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice, we find no compelling basis to overturn  our
earlier determination that this case should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 June 2003, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                             Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                             Mr. Billy Baxter, Member
                             Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-02770 was considered:

   Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Mar 03.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Apr 03, w/atchs.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair