ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00281
INDEX CODE: 112.10
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His rank of brigadier general (BG) be restored effective
1 February 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 26 February 2009, the Board considered and denied a similar
appeal. For an accounting of the facts surrounding his previous
request and the rationale of the Board's earlier decision, see
the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.
On 25 June 2009, the applicant submitted a letter requesting the
Board reconsider his request. He states he served the requisite
amount of time to hold the grade of BG in retirement and did not
willingly or voluntarily retire, rather he was ordered to.
Major General (MG) W---- acted in an arbitrary, capricious,
unfair and political manner by forcing his retirement. AFI 36-
2909, Professional and Nonprofessional Relationships does not
address relationships with civilians not associated with the
military and sends a confusing and unclear message. MG W-----
did not initiate an investigation nor take any action against
his counterpart, the assistant AG, Army BG Y-----, for an
obvious improper relationship with a junior officer (his
military aid). He recommends the Board refer the situation to
the Army IG for investigation of both BG Y----- for his
inappropriate relationship with a subordinate and for the
inaction of the supervisor, MG W----- for not formally
addressing the situation upon BG Y-----s marriage to a
subordinate. The obvious improper relationship by his peer was
overlooked during the same period and the punishment he received
was highly prejudicial and unfair. Additionally, information
contained in the IG report is incorrect or misleading.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In an earlier finding, the Board determined there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. After
thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in
support of his appeal and the evidence of record, we do not
believe the applicant has overcome the rationale expressed in our
previous decision. The applicant contends that he served the
requisite amount of time to hold the grade of BG in retirement;
however, the SECAF determined the last grade satisfactorily held
was that of colonel. Furthermore, the opinion provided from the
NGB Judge Advocates office dated 2 September 2008, adequately
addressed the application of 10 U.S.C. 1370 and Ohio State Law as
to whether he would have been authorized to retire as a BG based
on the circumstances surrounding his retirement. In view of the
above, it remains our opinion that the applicant has failed to
sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an
error or injustice. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which
to recommend favorable consideration of the applicants request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of error or an 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 Docket Number BC-
2008-00281 in Executive Session on 8 October 2009 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number
BC-2008-00281 was considered:
Exhibit G. Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated
8 April 2009, with exhibits.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 June 2009.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
39705
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006786
Counsel states an AR 15-6 investigation was conducted about the command climate of the applicant's unit. Headquarters, 8th TSC, Fort Shafter, HI, memorandum, dated 27 April 2011, subject: AR 15-6 Investigation Appointment, shows COL B____ A____ was appointed as an IO by MG M____ J. T____, CG, 8th TSC, to conduct an informal AR 15-6 investigation into the command climate within the 45th SBDE command group, and an assessment of the relationship between the Brigade Commander, her brigade...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020433
Counsel requests reconsideration of the applicant's request for correction of his records as follows: * Removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR), dated 25 April 2007, from his official military personnel file (OMPF) * Removal of the Secretary of the Army's (SA) Letter of Censure, dated 30 July 2007, from his OMPF * Reissuance of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) showing his rank/grade as lieutenant general (LTG)/O-9 * Back pay and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006076
The advisory official's key points of emphasis include * the NEARNG requested a determination by the AGDRB of the highest grade satisfactorily served by the applicant * the AGDRB determined the applicant's service in the grade of COL was unsatisfactory based on the fact that the applicant was relieved from brigade command * the applicant received selection of eligibility for promotion to BG (O-7) on 5 August 2010; however, he did not serve as a BG and could not meet the statutory TIG...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010393
The applicant requests correction of his military records by adjusting his promotion dates for brigadier general (BG) to on or about 30 July 2009 and for major general (MG) to on or about 7 August 2011. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving as TAG for the State of Maryland. The applicant contends, in effect, that his military records should be corrected by adjusting his promotion dates for BG to on or about 30 July 2009 and to MG to on or about 7 August 2011.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01871
Two of the members of a three-person ethics panel appointed to conduct an ethics review on him had already prejudged the case and/or had an obvious interest in supporting the IG’s conclusions. They also provide responses to each of the allegations made by the applicant. Again, other than his assertion, the applicant has not provided evidence to support this allegation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019930
On 8 June 2010, the Commanding General, AHRC, denied the applicant's request for a date change to his approved retirement in lieu of PCS. In paragraph 6b, the advisory opinion recommended, based on regulatory and legal guidance, documents provided, information provided above, and ultimately the applicant's own decision to retire, the applicant's approved retirement in lieu of PCS stand and not be revoked. His approved retirement date was only on record because: (1) AHRC compelled him to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110000471
The applicant requests removal of a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) from his official military personnel file (OMPF). On 31 December 2008, the applicant was presented with the GOMOR issued by MG M---n. The GOMOR stated the applicant was being reprimanded for his actions surrounding the applicant's inappropriate relationship with a female enlisted Soldier and for lying to the IO about the relationship. In this case, the applicant's GOMOR does not appear to have served its...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03453 2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. In a letter dated 24 December 2008, the applicant requests reconsideration. DPSIDEP states although the evidence submitted by the applicant indicates there was only one unprofessional relationship with an enlisted member, the evaluators may have been privy to information that was not made available to the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090013608
The imposing commander further determined that the unfavorable information upon which the GOMOR was based had been properly referred to the applicant, and the commander directed that the GOMOR be filed in the applicant's OMPF. A memorandum of reprimand may be filed in a Soldier's OMPF only upon the order of a general officer level authority and are to be filed in the performance section. The evidence of record shows the applicant received a GOMOR for misconduct and that it was filed in his OMPF.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01073
Applicant states, in part, that he advised the South Carolina Adjutant General (SC AG) of an attempt by another officer in the SC ANG to subvert the AG’s express wishes by having himself (the other officer) assigned to the COS position in the SC ANG; he was asked by the AG to document, by memorandum, the conversation between the two, which he did; the memorandum “found its way to others” and he subsequently became the focus of an AF/IG investigation that eventually found that he had...