RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01446
            INDEX CODE:  112.08

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 NOV 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  offered  continuation  by  the  Calendar  Year  2006C  (CY06C)  Major
Chaplain Selective Continuation Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is not challenging the record as it stands for  promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel but is  challenging  the  denial  for  selective  continuation.   He
believes there is an injustice in the interpretation and deployment  of  the
term “fully qualified.”  This interpretation is an injustice to him and  the
Air Force as a whole.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
documents extracted from his military personnel record.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
major effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 September 2000.

On 30 September 2004, applicant was notified by his commander of his  intent
to impose punishment under Article 15 of  the  Uniformed  Code  of  Military
Justice (UCMJ) for alleged violations of Articles 133 and 134 of  the  UCMJ.
Specifically that he did, a Roman Catholic Chaplain, between on or  about  1
January 2004 and on or about 17 August 2004, engage in an inappropriate  and
unprofessional relationship with a married parishioner,  conduct  which  was
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.  Also, he did on  or  about  27  June
2004, on divers occasions, willfully and wrongfully expose  in  an  indecent
manner to public view his penis.  He was  advised  of  his  rights  in  this
matter and acknowledged  receipt  of  the  notification.   After  consulting
counsel, he elected not to demand trial by  court-martial  and  submitted  a
presentation  on  his  own  behalf.   After  considering  all  the   matters
presented,  his  commander  determined  that  he  did  commit  the   alleged
violations.  The punishment imposed consisted of a forfeiture of $1,500  pay
per month for two months, and a reprimand.  Applicant  did  not  appeal  the
Article 15 proceedings.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
lieutenant colonel by the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection  Board
which convened on 28 November 2006.

Applicant was not selected for continuation  by  the  CY06  Major  Selective
Continuation Board and has a  mandatory  date  of  separation  (DOS)  of  31
August 2007.

OPR profile since 2000 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING            EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 02 Jul 00   Meets Standards (MS)
                 11 Jun 01                   (MS)
                 16 May 02   Training Report (TR)
                 16 May 03                   (MS)
                 16 May 04                   (MS)
                 16 May 05   Referral Report
                             Met Standards in all but
                             Professional Qualities
                 16 May 06                   (MS)

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial.   DPPPO  states  the  applicant  received  a
referral OPR closing out 16 May 2005, along with an Article 15 received  for
an  inappropriate   and   unprofessional   relationship   with   a   married
parishioner, conduct which was unbecoming an officer and  a  gentleman.   In
addition,  on  diverse  occasions,  he  willfully  and  wrongfully   exposed
himself, in an indecent manner to said married parishioner.  A copy  of  the
Article 15 was part of the selection  record  that  met  the  promotion  and
selective continuation boards.

Applicant contends that since the incident in  question,  his  track  record
has been “beyond reproach”  as  evidenced  by  the  letters  of  endorsement
included in his package.  In addition, since Roman Catholic Priests  are  in
a critical skill category, he believes he is suitable for continuation.

Although the applicant’s commander and other officers who have  served  with
the applicant support continuation,  the  applicant’s  record  supports  the
board’s decision to not  offer  him  selective  continuation  to  retirement
eligibility.

The DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 20 June 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  the  Board  is  not
persuaded relief should be granted.  The applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, the  Board  does  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the  rationale  provided  by
the Air Force office of primary responsibility.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of evidence to  the  contrary,  the  Board  finds  no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

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 issue 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 an error or injustice; the application was  denied  without
a personal appearance; and 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-2007-
01446 in Executive Session on 26 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 May 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Jun 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 07.




                                   B J WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair