RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-02310
            INDEX CODE  131.02  126.02
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Article 15 imposed on him on 6 Aug 02 be set aside, his  selection
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) by  the  Fiscal
Year 2003 (FY03)  Judge  Advocate  General  (JAG)  and  Chaplains  LTC
Selection Board be reinstated with back pay, and he be reimbursed  for
the $2,000 fine.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The evidence was not shared with him, the collateral consequences were
not enumerated, he was never advised of  his  right  to  question  his
accusers, due process was not followed, he was ordered to keep  silent
which silenced any advocacy, he was  given  bad  advice  by  his  area
defense counsel (ADC), supportive persons were not interviewed or were
ignored, and he did not fully understand  his  right  to  decline  the
Article 15 request trial by court-martial. He discusses  these  points
in detail in his personal statement. He points out that  his  troubles
really began with the delayed reimbursement of  his  enormous  housing
expenses. After futile earlier efforts,  he  called  ARPC/CC  and  was
promised resolution.  However,  ARPC/HC  senior  and  staff  chaplains
complained about his “going around them.” He was tagged a troublemaker
and worse by ARPC/HC; that perception would come back to haunt him.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant began his Reserve career on 20 Feb 85 and  was  promoted
to major with a date of rank (DOR) of 20 Feb 96. During the period  in
question, he was assigned to the XXXXX  Air  Reserve  Squadron  (ARS),
Denver CO, and attached to the XXXX Space Wing (XX SW), XXXXX AFB  CO,
as the  Individual  Mobilization  Augmentee  (IMA)  Senior  Protestant
Chaplain.

He entered extended active duty (EAD) on 15 Oct 01.

The applicant was considered and selected for promotion  by  the  FY03
JAG and Chaplains LTC Selection Board, which convened  on  22 Apr  02.
The projected effective date was 20 Feb 03.

On 4 Jun 02, he was deployed to Doha, Qatar for 90 days. While  there,
sexual harassment allegations were made against him and, on 20 Jul 02,
the wing commander appointed an investigative officer (IO) to  conduct
a commander-directed investigation.

The Report  of  Investigation  (ROI)  was  completed  on  25  Jul  02.
According to the ROI, the applicant allegedly tugged on SSgt D’s pants
and spanked her before witnesses, placed his hand on her leg,  touched
TSgt V on the leg,  and  patted  SSgt  J  on  the  buttocks.  He  also
allegedly made inappropriate  remarks  to  SSgt  D  and  TSgt  V,  and
transmitted sexually suggestive  email  to  four  female  airmen.  The
applicant denied  knowing  TSgt  V,  or  having  anything  other  than
professional relationships with any female while  deployed  to  Qatar.
The IO concluded the preponderance of the evidence  substantiated  the
inappropriate  touching,  comments  and  email  allegations,  and   he
recommended disciplinary action.

On 30 Jul 02, applicant was notified of  the  64th  Air  Expeditionary
Group commander's (64 AEG/CC) intent to impose nonjudicial  punishment
upon him for the following: (1) Wrongfully using  government  computer
hardware/software to send unauthorized email on or about  11  Jun  02;
(2) Maltreating TSgt D with inappropriate remarks on or about 4 and 17
Jun 02; (3) Unlawfully spanking SSgt D on her buttocks, tugging on her
pants and placing his hand on her leg on or about 4 and 17 Jun 02; (4)
Unlawfully patting SSgt J on her buttocks on or about 4 and 17 Jun 02;
and (5) Unlawfully placing his hand on TSgt V’s leg on or about 4  and
17 Jun 02. The AF Form 3070 (Article 15 Form) outlines the rights of a
military member.

On 1 Aug 02, after consulting with counsel, the applicant  waived  his
right to a trial by court-martial, requested a personal appearance and
submitted a written presentation.

In a 2 Aug 02 letter, the 64  AEG/CC  recommended  the  9th  Aerospace
Expeditionary Task Force commander (9  AETF/CC)  approve  the  Article
15’s proposed punishment. The 64 AEG/CC advised the 9 AEFT/CC that the
applicant’s oral presentation on 1 Aug 02 did not add to the  attached
written presentation.

On 6 Aug 02, the 9 AETF/CC found  the  applicant  guilty  and  imposed
punishment in the form of a reprimand and forfeiture  of  $2,000.  The
applicant indicated on 7 Aug 02 that he would not appeal.  The Article
15  was  found  legally  sufficient  and  filed  in  his   Unfavorable
Information File (UIF). The applicant acknowledged that  he  had  been
informed of the UIF decision.

On 6 Aug 02, the applicant was advised that the Article  15  would  be
placed  in  his  Officer  HQ  USAF  Selection  Record.  The  applicant
acknowledged receipt on 7 Aug 02 and indicated  he  would  not  attach
correspondence for consideration. On 12 Aug 02, the 9  AETF  commander
determined the Article 15 would be filed in  the  applicant’s  officer
selection record (OSR).

The applicant was demobilized and honorably released from active  duty
on 18 Aug 02 after 10 months and 4 days of active service.

On 11 Sep 02, the applicant was notified that the 21 SW  commander  at
Peterson AFB was recommending the applicant’s name be removed from the
promotion list. The applicant  submitted  a  response  on  24 Sep  02,
denying inappropriate behavior and asserting no one ever counseled him
on his conduct or sexual harassment.

On 8 Jan 03, HQ ARPC/JA found the Propriety of Promotion Action (POPA)
to be legally sufficient and recommended removal  from  the  promotion
list. On 27 Jan 03, HQ ARPC forwarded the  POPA  to  HQ  AFRC  with  a
recommendation of removal. According to HQ ARPC/DPBB, the package  was
forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF)  around  2  Oct  03,
where it is pending.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM discusses the applicant’s numerous points presented in  his
appeal and concludes that nothing he presents indicated a violation of
the Article 15  nonjudicial  punishment  process.  The  AF  Form  3070
(Article 15) specifically informs a member of  his  rights  and  lists
sources of the information on his rights. He had  the  opportunity  to
raise his alleged lack of access to the evidence against him with  the
commander before he accepted the Article 15. He signed  and  initialed
each step on the form along the process  indicating  he  was  actively
participating in it. He chose the forum of the Article 15 process  and
left  the  fact-finding  up  to  his  commander.  The  bases  of   the
applicant’s request for relief are  insufficient  to  warrant  setting
aside the Article 15 actions, nor do  they  demonstrate  an  equitable
basis for relief. As the applicant has provided no evidence of  either
a clear error or injustice  related  to  the  Article  15,  denial  is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ ARPC/DPB indicates the applicant appears to believe his 10  May  02
OPR, strong Promotion Recommendation, and second  Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM) should negate the Article 15. All the documentation  cited
were completed prior to the incidents that led to the Article 15.  The
IO concluded improprieties had occurred and the POPA was found  to  be
appropriate and legally sufficient by each Judge Advocate office  that
examined it. The evidence  came  to  light  based  on  incidents  that
occurred after the FY03 selection board had adjourned.  The  applicant
presented  no  clear  or  compelling  evidence   to   contradict   the
investigation conclusions. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 29 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the requested relief should be granted. The applicant’s
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we   do   not   find   these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.  The
applicant signed and initialed each step on the Article 15 form, which
specifically informs a member of his/her rights. The  applicant  chose
the forum of the Article 15 process, and neither  his  submission  nor
his available records confirm his  allegations.   We  therefore  agree
with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 28 October 2003 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
                 Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-02310 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 28 Jul 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 21 Aug 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 03.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair