RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00696 

COUNSEL: 

HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He records be corrected to reflect that on 14 February 2006, he 
was not discharged in lieu of trial by court martial rather he 
was retired. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

When he submitted his request for discharge in lieu of trial by 
court-martial he believed it was in the best interest of his 
family and the Air Force. He was under tremendous stress; 
however, he had little time to fully contemplate the long-term 
impact of losing his retirement. In retrospect, it was a wrong 
decision. He would have retired without a conviction or adverse 
characterization of his service had the Article 32 investigating 
officer’s recommendation been followed. Putting him in the 
position to elect between trial and discharge for relatively 
minor allegations is unjust. Others similarly situated were 
allowed to retire without adverse characterization of service 
even though they were punished under Article 15 or by court-
martial. Alcohol got the best of him on occasions; however, 
that does not justify the harsh disciplinary actions taken 
against him. His family has suffered immensely, emotionally and 
financially because of his bad decisions. 

 

In support of his request, applicant submits personal 
statements, a brief prepared by his counsel, a statement/bio 
from the investigation officer; his request for discharge in 
Lieu of Trail letter, his DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release 
or Discharge from Active Duty, his personal data sheet, DD Form 
457, Investigation Officers Report and several other documents 
associated with his request. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 14 December 1984, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force 
(RegAF). 


On 4 April 2004, his commander ordered an investigation after 
receiving a complaint from the applicant’s subordinate that he 
was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior. 

 

Further investigation revealed that he was also having an 
unprofessional relationship with a member of his flight. Other 
female subordinates of his flight stated he maltreated them by 
making offensive, sexual comments. One airman reported that he 
touched her breast and buttocks while dancing with her. Another 
airman maintained that he attempted to kiss her and licked her 
face. He also provided alcohol to an underage female airman 
while on a flight outing. 

 

On 31 May 2005, charges were preferred. On 2 June 2005, an 
investigation officer held an Article 32 Hearing and recommended 
that he receive nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the 
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

 

On 11 July 2005, the 18th Air Force Commander (18th AF/CC) 
referred charges to trial by a general court-martial consisting 
of violation of Article 92, Failure to Obey an Order or 
Regulation and Article 93, Cruelty and Maltreatment, for 
allegedly engaging in an inappropriate relationship with an 
airman, providing alcoholic beverages to an underage airman and 
maltreatment of airmen. At the time of the court-martial 
charges, he was retirement eligible. 

 

On 1 September 2005, the applicant’s defense counsel submitted a 
request for a Chapter 4, Discharge In Lieu of Court Martial. 
The request was denied and trial was set for 20 November 2005. 
On 3 February 2006, the government received a renewed request 
for a Chapter 4, discharge, in which the applicant agreed to 
forego dual action processing, rendering him ineligible for 
retirement after over 20 years of service. 

 

Effective 14 February 2006, he was discharged for misconduct in 
the grade of master sergeant with service characterized as Under 
Other than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC). He served 21 years and 
2 months of total active federal military service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that in a 2 February 
2006 memorandum, the applicant specifically did not request dual 
action process. When a member does not apply for retirement, 
the Air Force takes action to process the discharge action. His 
area defense counsel notes "the investigating officer 
recommended that the applicant be given an Article 15 and be 
allowed to retire... “ On 3 February 2006, the 6th Air Mobility 
Wing (AMW) judge advocate reviewed his case and noted ”According 
to the applicant's own statement he is willing to forgo dual 


action process which means that he would not be entitled to 
retirement after over 20 years of service. By approving the 
Chapter 4 discharge, the government can guarantee that the 
applicant is discharged with an Under Other than Honorable 
Condition’s characterization." On 6 February 2006, the 6th 
AMW/CC recommended discharge in lieu of court-martial to the 
18th AF/CC. On 7 February 2006, the 18th AF/CC approved his 
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and 
specified the characterization of service be UOTHC. The 
applicant was advised of his right to request retirement in lieu 
of discharge and clearly made the decision to request discharge 
in lieu of court-martial. He also acknowledged by his signature 
the character of discharge may be UOTHC. 

 

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel states the focus of the advisory opinion 
is on the claim the applicant gave up the right to dual 
processing of his request for discharge so he could retire. He 
was not given a choice for dual processing or retirement. He 
was told he would go to court-martial or be discharged but the 
retirement option was not on the table. The heart of their 
claim is that senior officers facing similar allegations in the 
same time frame did not face this dilemma and were simply 
allowed to retire, even if at a lower grade and the advisory 
opinion did not challenge this point. 

 

The complete response 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. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, based on the available evidence of 
record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the 
substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within 
the commander's discretionary authority. Counsel’s assertions 
the applicant was not given a choice for dual processing or 
retirement and that senior officers facing similar allegations 
were treated differently and allowed to retire are duly noted; 


however, as previously stated by DPSOR, the applicant was advised 
of his right to request retirement in lieu of discharge and made 
the decision to request discharge in lieu of court-martial. 
Therefore, we conclude the discharge proceedings were proper and 
characterization of the discharge was appropriate to the existing 
circumstances. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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 BC-2009-00696 in 
Executive Session on 29 September 2009, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 February 2009, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 16 July 2009. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 August 2009. 

Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 17 September 2009. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair