RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00286
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be reinstated to the grade of captain.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In 2005, she received an Article 15, non-judicial punishment for drinking
too much in public and for failure to return back to duty. She is not
making excuses for her failure to act as a professional officer nor is she
disputing the Article 15, she is asking that she not be punished for the
remainder of her life. She later discovered the Senior Non-Commissioned
Officer (SNCO) that she was with at the time (who also received punishment)
received her rank back within six months after receiving the Article 15.
She made a mistake and has accepted responsibility for that mistake.
However, she feels that she has been treated unjustly. The injustice is
punishing her for the rest of her life with no redemption and the SNCO
received her rank back in record time. Up until this incident her record
has been spotless. Over 20 years of enlisted and officer duties with an
impeccable record should count for something.
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement,
documents extracted from her military personnel records, and a personnel
data system printout.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant's military personnel records were not made available. Data
extracted from documents provided by the applicant reflects she was
progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade
effective and with a date of rank of 9 December 2003.
On 18 April 2006, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under
Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for the following
offenses:
a. She did without authority, absent herself from her place of duty
until 1 November 2005.
b. On or about 1 November 2005, with intent to deceive, she made a
false official statement to her supervisor.
c. On or about 31 October 2005, she was drunk and disorderly while in
uniform, during the duty day, to the disgrace of the armed forces.
d. On or about 31 October 2005, she wrongfully failed to take
adequate affirmative steps, as the senior ranking officer present to bring
an end to the misconduct being committed by an enlisted subordinate, and to
otherwise permanently, remove herself from the presence of the enlisted
member and civilians, all of whom were committing indecent and disorderly
acts.
e. On or about 31 October 2005, she knowingly fraternized with an
enlisted person, on terms of military equality, by engaging in drunk,
disorderly and indecent conduct in uniform and in public in violation of
the custom of the Air Force that officers shall not fraternize with
enlisted persons on terms of military equality.
f. On or about 31 October 2005, she wrongfully committed an indecent
act by kissing an enlisted member and civilian on their lips, rubbing the
breasts of the civilian and placing her hands on or near the groins of
both, all while she and the enlisted member were in uniform in the public
dining area.
The applicant's punishment consisted of a forfeiture of $2,620.00 pay per
month for two months and a reprimand. She did not appeal the punishment.
The Article 15 was filed in the applicant's Unfavorable Information File
(UIF).
In conjunction with her application for retirement, IAW section 1370(d)(1),
Title 10, U.S.C., an Officer Grade Determination (OGD) was conducted. On
19 January 2007, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council
determined the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of first
lieutenant and that she should be retired in that grade.
The applicant was placed on the Reserve Retired List effective 19 January
2007 in the grade of first lieutenant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1E recommends denial. A1E states the applicant's retirement rank of
first lieutenant (0-2) is in fact accurate. The current retirement rank
was appropriately processed for determination and final decision up to the
SAF. A command administrative review processing procedure was followed
supporting this action and her transfer to Retired Reserve. The applicant
was afforded due process in accordance with the command administrative OGD
review processing procedures. The final result of her command OGD case
ending in the fact, that "the Secretary finds the applicant did serve
satisfactorily in the grade of first lieutenant within the meaning of the
provision of law (Section 1370(d)(1), Title 10, United States Code) and
directs that she be transferred to the retired reserve in that grade." As
such, and given that the applicant has not provided any documentation
substantiative in nature or otherwise, that would support a command change
in position on this case; disapproval of applicant's request is
appropriate.
The complete A1E evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states she has learned from her
mistake. With one afternoon of misjudgment - she ruined a spotless 20
years of hard work and dedication to the United States Air Force.
The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant is requesting that the
determination of the Secretary of the Air force Personnel Council that she
did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of captain be reversed. After
careful consideration of the applicant's submission along with the evidence
of record, we are not persuaded that an error or injustice exists that
requires correction. The applicant has not submitted evidence showing that
the statutorily required OGD action was inappropriate or that the
determination of the Secretary's designee was erroneous. Further, we are
not persuaded by her assertion of being "punished for the rest of her life"
of the existence of an injustice in this case. Therefore, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air force office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as basis for our
conclusion that she has failed to sustain her burden of proof of the
existence of either an error or injustice in this case.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or an 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-2008-
00286 in Executive Session on 6 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 December 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1E, dated 3 March 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 March 2008.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 March 2008, w/atchs.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
As a lieutenant colonel, he was subjected to an Officer Grade Determination (OGD) because of a letter of reprimand (LOR) and an Article 15. A complete copy of the DPPRRP evaluation, with attached Report of Investigation, is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the advisory opinion, the applicant stated that he accidentally viewed some nude photographs while trying to learn how to use the Internet. The evidence of record reflects that the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03472
It was recommended she be allowed to retire on her established retirement date of 19 Aug 09. e. On 14 Sep 09, AFRC/A1 notified the RMG that since the applicant is currently retired that she would need to file for incapacitation pay with the AFBCMR. The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/JA and AFRC/SG did not and are not practicing due diligence with regard...
On 16 Mar 95, the Air Force Personnel Board considered the case and unanimously determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5), and that he should be retired in the grade of major (0-4). On 30 Jun 95, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel and retired, effective 1 Jul 95, in the grade of major. In the case of the applicant, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Board reviewed his retirement...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01107
It must be noted that Major Depressive Disorder was not diagnosed prior to his retirement. Review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from length of service retirement to disability retirement or to override the OGD. Based on his overall record of performance and noting the recommendations from his commanders, we recommend that the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect that he retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel.
Review of medical records does not disclose any evidence to support correction of records from length of service retirement to disability retirement or to override the OGD. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting correcting the applicant’s records to show that he served satisfactory in the grade of lieutenant colonel pursuant to Title 10, USC, Section 1370(a); and that he retired in that grade. Based on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02307
The applicant filed an IG complaint containing one allegation that the superintendent of the Joint Service Honor Guard (JSHG) reprised against her for making a protected disclosure to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Office. Noting that the IG investigation substantiated reprisal, we find it reasonable to believe the applicant would have been continued on active duty orders for the period of 30 Sep 06 to 30 Sep 07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2008-02307 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00308
As a result of an OGD decision, after over 27 years of active duty service, he had to retire in the grade of lieutenant colonel. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on the applicant’s requests for setting aside the nonjudicial punishment imposed upon him under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); promoting him to the grade of brigadier...
On 14 February 1997, the commander, AFIA/CC, notified him that he was initiating an OGD because he received punishment under Article 15, within two years of retirement. On 28 February 1997, the Major Command Judge Advocate, AFIA/JA, found the OGD package legally sufficient to support a recommendation that the applicant be retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. On 28 April 1997, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04501
On 17 December 1996, the applicant was notified of his commanders intent to initiate an officer grade determination (OGD) action, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements. On 26 December 1996, the Air Force Recruiting Squadron, Judge Advocate (AFRS/JA) reviewed the OGD package, including matters submitted by the applicant, and concluded the applicant should be retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. The AFRS/CC recommended to the AETC/CC that the applicant be retired...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01094 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00; 129.04 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Fred L. Bauer XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Grade Determination (OGD) that required him to retire in the grade of captain be overturned, his retirement grade be corrected to reflect the grade of major, and he be paid all back...