RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00937 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His officer grade determination (OGD) be reviewed and he be 
allowed to retire in the grade of colonel (O-6). 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Aside from the indiscretion that led to his Article 15 
punishment, his service record was exemplary. His commander at 
the time asked him to resign immediately from the Air Force in 
exchange for his assurance that he would be able to retire in the 
grade of colonel. In spite of his commander’s strong support, he 
was reduced to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) upon his 
retirement. His retirement in the grade of lieutenant colonel 
has caused a financial hardship. He strongly believes his career 
of service with the Air Force merits that he be retired in the 
grade of colonel. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a statement from his counsel, Secretary of the Air 
Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) grade determination, Record of 
Nonjudicial Punishment, several letters of support, and copies of 
several officer performance reports. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 2 December 2005, the applicant’s commander appointed an 
investigating officer (IO) to conduct a Commander Directed 
Investigation (CDI) into allegations of a possible unprofessional 
relationship between the applicant and one or more members of his 
staff. A legal review, dated 7 January 2006, indicates the IO 
found five allegations against the applicant substantiated. The 
five substantiated allegations were: (1) violation of Article 
92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), through willful 
dereliction in the performance of duties by failing to obey the 
provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2909, Professional 
and Unprofessional Relationships, by having an unprofessional 
relationship with a civilian employee whom he supervised, that 
adversely affected morale, discipline and respect for authority; 


and, that resulted in favoritism, misuse of position, and the 
abandonment of organizational goals for personnel interest; (2) 
violation of Article 92, UCMJ, by failure to obey the lawful 
order by his superior to cease any unprofessional relationship 
with members of his directorate; (3) violation of Article 92 of 
the UCMJ, by failing to obey a lawful general regulation, AFI 33-
119, Air Force Messaging, and DoD 5500.7-R, the Joint Ethics 
Regulation (JER), by using government communication resources for 
other than official or authorized purposes; (4) violation of 
Article 107, UCMJ, by lying to superiors regarding whether an 
unprofessional relationship existed between himself and his 
secretary; and (5) violation of Article 133, UCMJ, by engaging in 
all of the above acts which constitute conduct unbecoming an 
officer and a gentlemen. 

 

An Air Force IMT 1160, dated 26 January 2005, indicates the 
applicant voluntarily requested retirement effective 26 January 
2006. On 30 January 2006, the applicant was notified by his 
commander of his intent to impose Article 15 punishment against 
the applicant for conducting an unprofessional relationship with 
his civilian secretary, as it was his duty not to do. On 3 
February 2006, his commander found the applicant did commit one 
or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment of 
forfeiture of $2000 pay and a reprimand. 

 

On 20 March 2006, SAFPC found the applicant did not serve 
satisfactorily in the grade of colonel within the meaning of 
Section 1370(a)(1), Title 10 United States Code; however, he did 
serve satisfactorily in the grade of lieutenant colonel within 
the meaning of the provision of law; and, directed he be retired 
in the grade of lieutenant colonel. 

 

Title 10, United States Code, Section 1370 (a) (1) indicates 
“Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other 
provision of law, a commissioned officer (other than a 
commissioned warrant officer) of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or 
Marine Corps who retires under any provision of law other than 
chapter 61 or chapter 1223 of this title shall, except as 
provided in paragraph (2), be retired in the highest grade in 
which he served on active duty satisfactorily, as determined by 
the Secretary of the military department concerned, for not less 
than six months.” 

 

The applicant was honorably released from active duty on 31 March 
2006 and retired effective 1 April 2006 in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel. He served 26 years, 6 months, and 12 days of 
active duty. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AF/DPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPO 
indicates they concur with the 20 March 2006 determination by 
SAFPC. 

 

The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 12 June 2009, a copy of the Air Force advisory opinion was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. 
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 available records, we found no evidence 
the individual’s records are in error. Applicant argues for 
relief on the basis that he elected to retire because his 
commander guaranteed he would retire in the grade of colonel. 
However, the Board majority notes that since the commander was 
not the final decision authority and could only make a 
recommendation, such a guarantee would be improper and outside 
the scope of the commander’s authority. Disturbingly, the 
applicant’s contentions regarding this matter give the appearance 
of efforts on the part of his commander to circumvent the 
procedures in place to deal with circumstances such as the 
applicant’s. The Board majority also notes that while a grade 
determination would not have been mandatory had the applicant 
served two years after receiving the Article 15, the commander 
still had the option to request such a review. Consequently, it 
is simply speculation on the applicant’s part as to the outcome 
had he not retired when he did. At most, it seems reasonable to 
the Board majority, the applicant, being a senior officer, should 
have well understood the most his commander could do was to make 
a favorable recommendation on his behalf, which it appears he 
did. Additionally, the Board majority notes the applicant has 
not offered any compelling evidence regarding the conduct, which 
led to his receipt of the Article 15 and his subsequent 
retirement, to show the actions taken against him constitute an 
error or injustice. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Board 
majority the relief requested should be denied. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 27 August 2009, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the 
application. XXXX voted to correct the record as requested but 
did not wish to submit a minority report. The following 
documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00937 was 
considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 09, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPO, dtd 4 Jun 09. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jun 09. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair