RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03956
                                        INDEX CODE:  126.00, 131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX               COUNSEL:  NONE
      XXXXXXXXXXX                       HEARING:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) effective 26 December 2001 be removed from his records.

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

4.  He receive Brigadier General Special Selection Board consideration.

5.  He be reinstated into Wing Command Candidate status.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His punishment was inappropriate because hypothermia, and the severe  mental
impairment that resulted from  it,  were  causal  to  the  incident.   As  a
result, he was not cognizant of the consequences of his actions  or  of  the
fact that he was doing anything wrong.  The punishment did not  account  for
his lack of mental responsibility.   The  political  context  in  which  the
Article 15 was issued and the subsequent appeal denied,  was  not  conducive
to  impartial   decision-making.    The   judge   advocate’s   conduct   was
prejudicial.

On 31 October 2001, he succumbed to hypothermia while  fly-fishing  from  an
inter-tube in an alpine lake in Colorado, drove a  motor  vehicle,  and  was
cited for Driving Under the Influence (DUI).  He had purchased alcohol  with
the intent of drinking it responsibly with a friend from out  of  town.   He
drank prior to succumbing to hypothermia  --  specifically:   one  ounce  of
alcohol in soda consumed with two and a  half  hours  remaining  before  his
departure.  While submerged in waders to mid-chest level for two hours,  his
body temperature dropped precipitously.  His fishing  partner  authenticates
these facts.

After an hour and 15 minutes on the lake he was ready to exit, but  did  not
act  on  that  inclination.   Instead,  he  lost  all   awareness   of   his
deteriorating situation until the two-hour  point,  when  he  awoke  from  a
period of sleep.  He recognized he was in trouble and slowly  made  his  way
to shore.  When he arrived on shore, it  took  considerable  time  to  dress
down and stow his gear, where he came across the alcohol.  He was  shivering
uncontrollably, anxious about his  impaired  physical  state,  and  got  the
notion in his mind that “this will make me warm.”  He was not  cognizant  at
all of the potential for intoxication, the  intoxication  that  subsequently
occurred, or of the fact that he was doing  something  wrong.   He  was  not
aware of his mental impairment or the fact that physiologically, he  was  in
danger.  He departed shortly after and has no  memory  of  the  return  trip
home.  During his  return,  a  motorist  called  in  his  tags  for  erratic
driving.  Local police  cued  Air  Force  Security  Personnel  to  stop  his
vehicle at the base gate.  He has no memory of his route to  the  base  gate
and only vague and partial recollections of  initial  processing.   It  took
some time to even comprehend where he was and register the  fact  that  what
was happening was real.  It was, literally, like waking from a bad dream.

An argument can be  made  that  hypothermia  was  foreseeable.   But  it  is
important to note that his  fishing  partner,  who  also  succumbed,  is  an
experienced alpine fisherman and former  USMC  winter  survival  instructor.
Both of them were lulled into a dangerous situation by an Indian  Summer  on
the Colorado  plain  that  did  not  exist  above  9000  feet.   Their  gear
prevented cold shock, but not debilitating heat loss over two hours.

His operational commander found the evidence  he  described  mitigating  and
was disposed towards a lesser punishment or  set-aside.   For  this  reason,
the  operational  commander  makes  no  reference  to  the  mishap  in   his
subsequent performance reports.  His  case,  however,  was  decided  by  his
administrative chain  of  command.   Recommendations  from  his  operational
chain were legally prescribed.  At best, his administrative chain  possessed
no direct knowledge of his character or  past  performance.   At  worst,  as
Director of Operations at Cheyenne Mountain, he was  a  principal  adversary
in a long-term bureaucratic conflict that culminated one week prior  to  the
Article 15 decision.  His intent  is  not  to  characterize  the  punishment
decision as vindictive, but it is fair to say without any  disrespect,  that
his relationship with  administrative  commanders  was  not  one  likely  to
promote  impartiality.   His  belief  is  that  his  relationship   led   to
abbreviated review and judgment of his case.  Finally, the judge  advocate’s
conduct  was  prejudicial.   Key  information  was  misrepresented   and   a
punishment decision secured before he had any knowledge of this fact or  the
opportunity to respond.

In summary, he should have never fallen victim to these events.   He  should
have assessed the environment he was entering.  He should have  worn  better
gear.  He should have inspected his gear.  He should have exited upon  first
recognition of being overly cold.  It was a bad decision  to  take  alcohol.
Like most mishaps, this one resulted from a chain of  misjudgments  each  of
which increased risk.  It is  his  professional  habit  to  step  back  from
situations and assess cumulative risk, but for some reason, he failed to  do
so  in  this  recreational  context.   With  full  acknowledgement  of  this
negligence, he respectfully  requests  the  Board  consider  two  questions:
1)  Was commander discretion appropriate in consideration  of  his  lack  of
mental responsibility for the DUI?  2)  Was  the  case  fairly  adjudicated?
An Article 15 is the  standard  institutional  punishment  for  a  DUI,  but
consideration of mitigating circumstances and past  duty  performance  is  a
commander’s right and obligation with any non-judicial punishment  decision.
 The incident was not a willful breech of trust, but  a  single  unfortunate
mishap in an otherwise exemplary twenty-two year  career.   Hypothermia  was
causal.  His actions as a result of hypothermia were  completely  unwitting.
Based on these facts  and  his  leadership  track  record,  his  operational
commander was disposed towards a  lesser  punishment.   Likewise,  from  the
standpoint of military law, a conviction was unlikely had this case gone  to
a court-martial.  In his view, both  the  organizational  climate  in  which
this case was decided and the  judge  advocate’s  conduct,  compromised  due
process.  He believes a set-aside was  warranted  when  the  relevant  facts
were scientifically established and the appropriate principles  in  military
case law identified.

In support of his request, applicant provides a  personal  statement  and  a
case information file in the form of two binders.  Binder I contains a  Case
Brief with documentary evidence with Tabs 1-10 and an  incident  replication
video and Binder II contains supplementary  documentation  with  Tabs  1-12.
 His complete submission, with Binders I and II, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date as  28
May 1980.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of  colonel,
with a date of rank and an effective date  of  1  September  1998.  He  was
considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general
by the BO702A brigadier general selection board that convened on  10 August
2002.  He is scheduled to be considered for the  BO703A  brigadier  general
selection board that is scheduled to convene on 18 August 2003.

On 5 Dec 01, the applicant was notified by his commander of  his  intent  to
recommend imposition of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15  UCMJ.   The
specific reason for this action was for driving while  drunk,  in  violation
of Article 111, UCMJ.   The  specification  alleged  the  applicant  was  in
physical control of a vehicle near the South Gate  entrance  to  the  United
States Air Force Academy on  or  about  31  October  2001  while  his  blood
alcohol concentration level was 0.10 or greater.   He  was  advised  of  his
rights in this matter and acknowledged receipt of  the  notification  on  17
Dec 01.  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  26 Dec  01,  after
consideration of all the facts, his commander determined that  he  committed
the  offense  alleged  and  imposed  a  reprimand  on  the  applicant.   The
applicant appealed his punishment to the Numbered Air Force Commander.   His
appeal was considered and denied on 29 Apr 02.

The following is a resume of the applicant's OPR profile:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      15 Apr 03  Meets Standards (MS)
      30 Jun 02              MS
      21 Feb 02              MS
      21 Feb 01        MS
      21 Feb 00                          MS
      09 Jun 99     MS
      09 Jun 98                       TRAINING REPORT
      12 Aug 96                          MS
      02 Feb 96                          MS
      02 Feb 95                          MS

The applicant has  received  two  AF  Form  709s,  Promotion  Recommendation
Forms, for the B0702A and B0703A  Brigadier  General  Selection  Boards  and
received an overall recommendation of  “Definitely  Promote”  and  “Promote”
respectively.   Additionally,  the  applicant’s  record  indicates  he   was
awarded the Defense Superior Service Medal (DSSM),  during  the  year  2002;
Meritorious Service Medal, Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster, during  the  year  2000,
Distinguished Flying Cross and Air Medal, Third Oak Leaf Cluster during  the
year 1991; Defense Meritorious Service Medal during the  year  1987  and  an
Air Force Commendation Medal during the year 1984.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The BCMR Medical Consultant reviewed the application and recommends a  legal
review.  The BCMR Medical Consultant states that the  applicant  provides  a
comprehensive, well-referenced review of the  medical  facts  pertaining  to
hypothermia due to environmental exposure.  He  has  obtained  authoritative
opinions from recognized experts  in  the  medical  aspects  of  hypothermia
confirming the plausibility of his contention  and  has  provided  objective
evidence in the form of an experiment demonstrating that the  conditions  he
reported he experienced caused significant hypothermia of sufficient  degree
to affect cognitive functioning.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant  states  that
the applicant reportedly drank a small amount of alcohol  during  the  first
30 minutes of water immersion while fishing.  Alcohol exacerbates heat  loss
and increases the risk for hypothermia when exposed  to  the  cold,  worsens
the degree of hypothermia,  and  also  worsens  the  disturbance  of  mental
functioning inducted by hypothermia.   Hypothermia  progressively  depresses
brain function.  Ingestion of alcohol by someone who  would  otherwise  know
better is felt to represent a  plausible  example  of  irrational  behavior.
The rapid ingestion of the relatively large amount of alcohol  at  the  time
the applicant reports would not manifest  immediately,  but  rather  over  a
period of 30 to 60 minutes coinciding with the time he arrived at  the  base
gate.  The replication experiment demonstrated he recovered to  near  normal
core body temperature by 90 minutes after entering his car (roughly 2  hours
after exiting the water), roughly the time he  would  have  arrived  at  the
gate.   The  BCMR  Medical  Consultant  concludes  that  the  applicant  has
provided clear evidence that his contention  is  medically  plausible  given
the events as presented.  The BCMR Medical  Consultant’s  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of applicant's request.  JAJM states  that  the
imposing commander may  set  aside  the  punishment  or  any  part  thereof,
restoring any property, privileges, or rights  affected  by  the  set  aside
portion of the punishment.  A set aside is appropriate  when  the  commander
believes that, under all circumstances  of  the  case,  the  punishment  has
resulted in clear injustice.  Set aside action is not normally considered  a
rehabilitation  tool  and  commanders  should  not   routinely   set   aside
punishment or use it as a reward for  a  member  who  merely  avoids  future
misconduct.   Like  an  appeal,  a  member  has  no  right  to  a   personal
presentation.  Unless it is shown that the commander’s findings were  either
arbitrary or capricious, they should not be disturbed.

JAJM states that the applicant’s complaints about  the  role  of  the  legal
office are without merit.  As provided by Air  Force  instructions  and  the
Manual for Courts-Martial  (MCM),  before  the  applicant  was  offered  the
Article 15 the legal office’s function was to consider whether the  evidence
proved those facts and advise  the  commander  accordingly.   The  applicant
condemns this practice as “prejudgment,”  but  does  not  dispute  the  test
results or the fact he was driving.   The  applicant  criticizes  the  legal
office for both its investigation of his defense and the failure to  provide
him with the result of that investigation.  These critiques have  no  merit.
It is not the function of a legal office to prove a member’s  defense;  that
is for the member and his defense counsel.  Because the  applicant  accepted
the Article 15 proceedings instead of demanding a  trial  by  court-martial,
he  vested  the  commander  with  the  responsibility   to   decide,   after
considering the applicant’s submission, whether applicant drove  drunk.   It
is abundantly clear that the applicant drove  onto  the  Air  Force  Academy
with a blood alcohol concentration over 0.20,  more  than  twice  the  legal
limit.  There are defenses to drunk driving allegations.  The applicant  did
not deny driving the car  or  having  a  blood  alcohol  content  twice  the
permissible limit; instead the applicant alleges his judgment  was  impaired
the day he drove to the Academy drunk, and the  impairment  was  beyond  his
control.  In essence he raises the affirmative defense of not being able  to
form the intent to drive drunk as a result of intoxication,  hypothermia  or
a combination.  No  reported  cases  have  been  found  involving  a  person
suffering from hypothermia who commits a crime, whether intoxicated or  not.
 Under the law, intoxication can be a defense under  certain  circumstances.
Voluntary intoxication is not  a  defense  to  drunk  driving--it  would  be
somewhat ludicrous to say that an individual  is  not  responsible  for  the
crime of drunk  driving  because  he  was  voluntarily  drunk.   Involuntary
intoxication can be a defense to drunk driving only  if  the  applicant  did
not voluntarily ingest alcohol and his mental state rises to  the  level  of
legal insanity.  Involuntary intoxication usually exists  when  intoxication
occurs through force, fraud, or trickery of another or actual  ignorance  of
intoxicating character of a substance.

Hypothermia is not  a  recognized  defense  per  se,  states  JAJM.   It  is
relevant in this case only to the extent that it  created  a  severe  mental
condition that left him unable to appreciate the nature and quality  of  his
act or the wrongfulness of his conduct.  In  other  words,  the  hypothermia
must have made him legally insane.  Similarly,  the  hypothermia  cannot  be
the result of a voluntary act on his part.

JAJM states that  this  application  does  not  allege  an  error  with  the
process, only the result.   The  applicant  wants  to  be  absolved  of  his
responsibility.  The BCMR is not intended to be a forum where a  member  can
litigate his case before a  new  audience,  hoping  this  time  for  a  more
favorable result.  The applicant agreed that  his  commander  would  be  the
fact-finder in his case, subject to an appeal  to  the  Numbered  Air  Force
Commander.  They were convinced the  applicant  committed  the  offense  and
should be punished.  Their decisions  were  reasonable  and  should  not  be
disturbed.   A  set  aside  should  only  be  granted  when   the   evidence
demonstrates an error or a clear injustice.  It is JAJM’s opinion  that  the
basis of the applicant’s request  for  relief  is  insufficient  to  warrant
setting aside the Article 15 action, and does not demonstrate  an  equitable
basis for relief.  The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFSLMO/AC recommends the application be denied.  AFSLMO states that the  Air
Force Chief of Staff’s policy is to remove from Command Candidate Lists  any
officers who have an open Unfavorable Information  File,  to  include  those
officers who receive an Article 15 under the UCMJ.  Applicant’s  Article  15
was found  to  be  legally  sufficient,  and  was  properly  placed  in  his
selection record.  As a result, there is no  material  or  procedural  error
with either his removal  from  the  Wing  Command  Candidate  List,  or  his
consideration for promotion by the CY02 Brigadier General  Selection  Board.
The AFSLMO/AC evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant states that he has reviewed  the  BCMR  Medical  Consultant’s  and
AFSLMO/AC  evaluations  and  renders  comment   only   on   the   AFLSA/JAJM
evaluation.

The applicant  addresses  two  points  regarding  the  AFLSA/JAJM  advisory;
involuntary intoxication and due process.  Applicant states that  the  legal
advisor concedes that involuntary intoxication is  an  affirmative  defense.
However, “the  science  and  the  facts  in  this  case  do  not  support  a
conclusion he was legally insane.”  As indicated in his  case  summary,  the
sheer irrationality of this episode is compelling evidence of severe  mental
impairment and the fact that he could not  appreciate  the  consequences  of
his action.  The notion that he would willfully put himself  at  such  grave
risk to his life and risk the lives of others is not credible.   His  mentor
and colleagues of the past 25  years  have  emphasized  in  letters  to  the
Board, this episode was an unprecedented deviation from past  behavior.   He
has fully acknowledged his misjudgments that day, but it is also clear  that
he  had  insidious  help  from  nature.   An  external  factor  beyond   his
recognition placed him beyond the point of self-help, and beyond  the  point
of cognition with respect to the consequences of his actions.

Applicant states that due process was compromised in  that  the  JA  in  his
case introduced erroneous evidence, secured a punishment decision  based  on
that evidence before he was  aware  of  the  facts,  and  then  blocked  his
efforts to subsequently correct the record.  Applicant states that there  is
no question that the 21 Space Wing Commander, Peterson AFB, CO, relied  upon
the JA’s evidence in his  determination  of  non-judicial  punishment.   The
JA’s allegation that he deliberately misreported a temperature  estimate  to
enhance his case--in essence, that he had lied, is an assertion  that  would
influence any commander’s punishment decision.

Applicant  states  that  the  JAJM   advisor   concedes   that   involuntary
intoxication is an affirmative defense.  The BCMR Medical Consultant  offers
the first objective, institutional assessment of his state  of  mind  during
the incident.  Therefore, the Board must rule  on  involuntary  intoxication
and due process.  A favorable ruling  on  either  issue  is  sufficient  for
correction of the record.  His complete submission, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit G.

On 22 and 23 July 2003, applicant submitted  additional  supporting  letters
from General ----, Mr. ------ , Mr. -----,  and his most recent OPR for  the
period 1 July  2002  through  15  April  2003.   Applicant  requested  these
documents be placed in his original application at Binder I,  Tabs  6I,  8H,
8J, and 10C.
_________________________________________________________________


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 injustice  warranting  favorable  action  on
the  applicant’s  request  for  setting  aside  the  nonjudicial  punishment
imposed upon him under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform  Code  of
Military Justice (UCMJ); removal of his Unfavorable Information  File  (UIF)
from his records; he  receive  brigadier  general  special  selection  board
consideration and he be reinstated into Wing Command Candidate Status.

            a.  Applicant contends that:  The punishment  was  inappropriate
because hypothermia, and the severe mental impairment that resulted from  it
were causal to his incident.  The applicant  states  that  he  succumbed  to
hypothermia while fly-fishing from  an  inter-tube  in  an  alpine  lake  in
Colorado.   He  states  he  purchased  alcohol  with  the  intent  to  drink
responsibly with a  friend  from  out  of  town.   He  did  drink  prior  to
succumbing to  hypothermia--specifically:  one  ounce  of  alcohol  in  soda
consumed with two and a half hours remaining  before  departure.   After  an
hour and 15 minutes on the lake, he was ready to exit but  did  not  act  on
that inclination.  Instead, he  lost  all  awareness  of  his  deteriorating
situation until the two-hour point, when he awoke from a  period  of  sleep.
He recognized he was in trouble and  when  he  arrived  on  shore,  it  took
considerable time to dress down and stow his gear, where he came across  the
alcohol.  He  was  shivering  uncontrollably,  anxious  about  his  impaired
physical state, he got the notion in his mind that the  alcohol  would  make
him warm.  He was not cognizant at all of the  potential  for  intoxication,
the intoxication that subsequently occurred, or the fact that he  was  doing
something wrong.  He was not aware of his mental impairment or of  the  fact
that physiologically, he was in danger.  He departed shortly after  and  has
no memory of the return trip home.  He has no memory of  his  route  to  the
base gate and only vague and partial recollections  of  initial  processing.
This incident was not a willful breech of trust, but  a  single  unfortunate
mishap in an otherwise exemplary twenty-two year career.

            b.  The Board noted the opinion by the BCMR  Medical  Consultant
that the  applicant’s  contention  is  medically  plausible.   However,  the
majority of  the  Board  notes  that  the  Medical  Consultant  states  that
detailed studies addressing the cognitive function  we  call  “judgment”  in
relationship to mild hypothermia are not  evident  in  the  literature,  but
irrational behavior and  impaired  judgment  is  consistently  reported--the
basis for his contention.  In addition, the Board majority also  noted  that
the applicant states he “self-admitted to  the  Life  Skill  Center  for  an
assessment and assistance,” however, the results were not available for  our
review.  Notwithstanding the opinion  that  the  applicant’s  contention  is
medically plausible, the  Board  majority  is  not  persuaded  the  evidence
supports his contention that his judgment was so  impaired  that  he  should
not be held responsible for his behavior.

            c.  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  accepted  nonjudicial
punishment proceedings.  He knowingly, voluntarily and with  the  advice  of
counsel, waived his right to demand a trial by court-martial.   He  knew  he
would have the right to appeal the decision to the appellate authority.   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  was
guilty of driving under the influence  of  alcohol.   The  Associate  Chief,
Military Justice Division,  further  states  that  the  applicant  made  his
election to resolve this issue in the nonjudicial forum  after  having  been
advised that his commander would make the decision whether he had  committed
the offense.  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.   The
applicant chose instead to handle the issue in the less  formal  nonjudicial
punishment forum, with its much less severe consequences.   While  different
fact finders may have  come  to  a  different  conclusion,  the  commanders’
findings are neither arbitrary nor capricious and should not  be  disturbed.


            d.  With all that being said, we would like to  point  out  that
upon the Board's review of the evidence, we found the 22  Space  Wing  Judge
Advocate's (SW/JA) interviews antagonistic.  22  SW/JA’s  foregone  approach
during their interviews demonstrated an  antagonistic  attitude  toward  the
individuals being questioned thus rendering, in our  opinion,  a  disservice
to the commander.  Nevertheless, the Board majority is  not  persuaded  that
the  contested  Article  15  punishment  should  be  removed.    The   Board
deliberated on the issue of whether  the  applicant’s  contention  that  his
severe mental impairment due to hypothermia was causal to his DUI and  as  a
result he was not cognizant of the consequences of his actions.  It  is  the
majority's opinion that the  underlying  misconduct  that  resulted  in  the
imposition  of  nonjudicial  punishment  on  26 December  2001,  was  indeed
unbecoming and unprofessional.  The Article  15  was  within  legal  limits,
appropriate   for   the   offense,   and   does   not   appear   unjust   or
disproportionate.  The Board majority notes  that  the  applicant  chose  to
purchase and drink the bottle of vodka.  We put credence in  the  fact  that
as an Air Force Survival School graduate, he should have known not to  drink
when exposed to cold temperatures-exacerbating heat loss and increasing  the
risk for hypothermia.  Nonetheless, despite his recognition that he was  “in
trouble” when he arrived on shore, he continued to  drink  with  the  notion
that “this will make me warm.”  Which  brings  us  to  the  event  that  the
majority finds most troubling.   Upon  his  detainment  at  the  South  Gate
entrance, the applicant twice asked the security policeman if there  is  any
way he could let him go.  Upon  the  security  policeman’s  reluctance,  the
applicant begins to advise him that he is a  highly  decorated  officer  who
has served in wartime operations and is up for wing commander and  if  there
was a way he could drive him home so  all  this  could  be  forgotten.   The
majority of the board believes that  this  type  of  reasoning  negates  the
argument that he was not cognizant of the consequences of his actions.

4.  In view of the above, the Board majority  is  unable  to  conclude  with
sufficient certainty on the basis of the evidence provided that  hypothermia
induced the applicant’s suspension of his consciousness thus  rendering  him
unable to think rationally.  After reviewing all the evidence  provided,  we
agree that the actions by the Air Force  authorities  were  appropriate  and
conclude  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain   his   burden   of
establishing existence of either an error or injustice.  The Board  majority
believes that the decision to remove the applicant  from  the  wing  command
candidate  list,  and  establish  a  UIF  were  the  direct  result  of  the
aforementioned Article 15 action.

5.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of  error  or  injustice
and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
03956, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended  disapproval  of  the  applicant's
requests.  Ms. Willis voted to  grant  and  agrees  with  the  BCMR  Medical
Consultant’s evaluation.

The following documentary evidence was considere1d for AFBCMR Docket  Number
02-03956:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 9 Apr 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFSLMO/AC, dated 9 Jun 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jul 03, w/atchs.





                             BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
               FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that the applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended
the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards
Agency