RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02020
            INDEX CODE:  111.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

      MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 JAN 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 12 Mar  01,  be  declared  void
and removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The OPR was based upon an incomplete Inspector General  (IG)  investigation.
The following alleged findings caused the report, but the additional  missed
evidence clears him.  He has been working administratively for some time  to
have the OPR removed without success.

The IG report alleges he submitted  a  false  travel  voucher  to  purposely
defraud the Government.  This is not true.  He made  mistakes  on  the  form
after an unusual TDY.  When Accounting and Finance Office personnel saw  the
error, he asked for an immediate form review session and he made changes  to
ensure the form was correct beyond question, well  before  anyone  raised  a
complaint.  Major S---, the travel expert, testified he  properly  submitted
the form to claim lodging/rental vehicle for travel/leave days.  He and  his
travel expert testify he made honest mistakes  and  intended  no  wrong.   A
review of previous travel  vouchers  revealed  he  had  shorted  himself  on
previous vouchers.  SAF/GC has already recognized this incomplete IG  report
and has removed another alleged finding.

The IG report alleges he did not charge himself an additional leave  day  on
that same TDY.  But the report  missed  the  facts  that  he  performed  TDY
supporting activities on that day.  Those events were  appropriate  for  the
TDY's purpose.  Yet he conservatively changed that day  to  a  leave  during
the trip review session, well before a complaint was raised.  The Air  Force
allows members to make conservative trip corrections to ensure  a  right  is
done.

The IG report alleges he submitted a one-day leave request "when  I  knew  I
would be out of the area for at least two or three days".  The  investigator
admits in the report that he has "no evidence  to  prove  or  disprove  this
allegation" yet he knowingly  presumed  him  guilty  and  misses  the  facts
provided in supporting documents.  He planned and did take a  one-day  quick
leave to attend family wedding events, and then  immediately  returned  home
with his son.  He was in his duty area after that one-day  leave,  and  used
only one leave day.  He even added that following day as a leave  day  after
his trip to ensure there was no doubt of wrong.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement,  a  copy
of  his  travel  voucher,  email  communiqué,  photographs,  and  supporting
statements.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the military personnel data  system  reflects  applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant and voluntary ordered to  extended  active
duty on 27 Mar 80.  He has been  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date or  rank  of  1
May 99.

While serving  as  commander  of  the  821st  Space  Group,  allegations  of
inappropriate conduct were filed against the applicant.   IG  investigations
were conducted by the 21st Space Wing Inspector General and 14th  Air  Force
Inspector General with the following findings:

The allegation that applicant falsified DD Form 1351-2,  Travel  Voucher  in
violation of Article 107, UCMJ - SUBSTANTIATED

Allegation applicant falsified AF Form 988, Leave  Request/Authorization  in
violation of Article 107, UCMJ - SUBSTANTIATED.

Allegation applicant was in Dereliction of Duty in violation of Article  92,
UCMJ - UNSUBSTANTIATED

Allegation of Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer in violation of Article  133,
UCMJ - SUBSTANTIATED

Allegation applicant was Absent Without Leave in violation  of  Article  86,
UCMJ - UNSUBSTANTIATED.

On 2 May 06, applicant was notified  by  his  commander  of  his  intent  to
impose punishment  under  Article  15  of  the  UCMJ  for  violations  under
Articles 107, 121, and 133.  Specifically, on or about 28 Mar 06, he made  a
false official statement to the Commander, 21 Security Forces Squadron  that
he did not try on glasses after removing the tag; he stole one pair of  Nike
sunglasses of value less than $100, the property of the Army and  Air  Force
Exchange Service; and while in uniform, wrongfully concealed a pair of  Nike
sunglasses under his service cap,  wrongfully  removed  the  price  tag  and
plastic price tag  connector  while  concealing  the  sunglasses  under  his
service cap,  and  leave  the  area  of  the  sunglasses  display  with  the
sunglasses concealed under his service cap.  He was advised  of  his  rights
in this matter and acknowledged receipt  on  8  May  06.   After  consulting
counsel, he elected not to demand trial by  court-martial  and  submitted  a
presentation on his own behalf to his commander.  After considering all  the
matters presented, his commander determined that he committed  the  offenses
alleged.  His punishment imposed consisted of forfeiture of $4,420  pay  per
month for two months, and reprimand.  Applicant submitted an appeal  to  the
Article 15 proceedings.  On 8 Jun 06, the  appellate  authority  denied  his
appeal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial.  DPPPEP states the applicant states  he  made
attempts to correct his record; however,  he  failed  to  submit  a  request
through the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  He received a  referral
OPR for the comment "investigation revealed irregularities in  personal  tvl
voucher/leave form; LOR/UIF result".  He  must  provide  evidence  that  the
investigation did not reveal irregularities in his personal  travel  voucher
and leave forms and that an LOR or UIF was not established.   He  failed  to
provide such evidence.  He continues to state that he did make a mistake  on
his travel voucher; however, it was not intentional.  The  referral  comment
does not state he  intentionally  defrauded  the  government  by  submitting
inaccurate vouchers; the comments simply state  the  investigation  revealed
irregularities.  The statement provided by Col N--- shows support  that  the
investigation did find him guilty is some aspect of the investigation.   The
document is probably not the only  information  the  investigating  officers
used to come  to  their  conclusion.   The  information  documented  on  the
referral OPR is an accurate statement.  The AFBCMR would  have  to  conclude
the investigation was inaccurate and remove its results as well as  the  LOR
and UIF in order to substantiate the OPR is inaccurate.

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA states having been  some  five  years  after  the  closeout  of  the
report, the application is untimely.  On its merits, denial is  recommended.
 JA states the applicant has failed to prove any error or injustice and  his
claim is without merit.  The  evidence  of  record  reflects  the  applicant
submitted a comprehensive response to the referral report  at  the  time  it
was referred, and current evidence offers little more than a reiteration  of
the original evidence and response.  The IG report  was  obviously  reviewed
for legal sufficiency, including a review at the highest level  of  the  Air
Force.  As noted by the applicant,  SAF/GC  apparently  struck  one  of  the
allegations as unsupported by the evidence.  What applicant misses  is  that
the other allegations remained, having been  found  legally  sufficient  and
upon which the referral OPR was based.  Additionally, the OPR comment  about
which  he  complains  does  not  allege  travel  fraud  or  theft  from  the
government.   Rather,  it  alleges  "irregularities   in   personal   travel
voucher/leave form," for which he received an LOR/UIF.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that over the years he has sought help removing  the  IG
report and OPR and provides  documentation  that  shows  he  requested  help
removing them.  Applicant states he has learned his lesson and has 100% led-
hard by positive example.  Applicant points  statements  from  various  OPRs
praising his performance and states he humbly learned  his  lesson  and  has
given his non-stop, positive leadership to set the right example for all  as
a full colonel.  An assessment by Colonel N---, AFSPC Director of  Logistics
did an evaluation of the IG report and independently determined that the  IG
reports findings were wrong and he should have  been  cleared.   AFPC/JA  is
wrong stating that  the  OPR's  words  "irregularities  in  personal  travel
voucher/leave form" are proper and he has  not  submitted  evidence  to  the
contrary.  He provided  Major  S---"s  testimony  that  clearly  states  his
travel/leave forms were not "irregular"  but  is  actions  were  proper  Air
Force actions.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took careful  notice  of  the
applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the   case.
Applicant contends that the referral marking and comment  contained  in  the
contested report was based upon an inaccurate IG investigation.  In  support
of his request he makes arguments and provides documentation he believes  to
be mitigating.  After a thorough review of  the  evidence  of  record  along
with his submission, we are not  persuaded  that  the  contested  report  is
erroneous or unjust.  Applicant has provided no evidence  which  would  lead
us to believe  that  the  contested  report  is  not  a  true  and  accurate
depiction of his demonstrated potential during the specified time period  or
that the comments contained in the report were in error or contrary  to  the
provisions of the governing instruction.  The opinions  and  recommendations
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility appear  to  be  based  on
the evidence of record  and  we  do  not  find  the  applicant's  assertions
sufficiently persuasive to refute their evaluation.  Accordingly,  we  adopt
the Air Force's rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  he  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2006-
02020 in Executive Session on 26 Oct 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 4 Aug 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Aug 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Sep 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  IG Investigative Report - WITHDRAWN




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair