RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01325
            INDEX CODE:  110.00; 114.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

      a.  His AF IMT 707A, Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)
(MAJ thru COL), for the period 16 Apr 04 thru 15 Apr 05,  be  declared  void
and removed from his records.

      b.  The Letter of Reprimand (LOR) dated 14 Sep  05,  be  removed  from
his record.

      c.  His Under Other Than Honorable  Conditions  (UOTHC)  discharge  be
upgraded to Honorable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His referral OPR was not based on its reporting period and feedback was  not
performed.  The LOR issued  was  unjust,  unfair  and  unwarranted  and  the
errors resulted in  his  administrative  discharge.   The  Discharge  Review
Board did not recognize or consider  all  evidence  presented  and  did  not
provide or state legal and regulatory references for their decision.

In support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of  multiple
attachments which  include  excerpts  from  his  discharge  case  file,  the
contested OPR and character letters.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Between Nov 03 and Mar 04, while deployed to Kuwait, the applicant  directed
a chaplain’s assistant to download nude pictures of himself from his  camera
to his government computer with the intention of  emailing  them  using  his
government email account.

Between Jul 04 and Dec  04,  the  applicant  engaged  in  an  unprofessional
sexual relationship with an airman who was  a  member  of  his  congregation
that had come to him for  counseling.   The  relationship  resulted  in  her
becoming pregnant.  The applicant took several actions to  try  and  conceal
the relationship from investigators.  He was  ordered  to  have  no  further
contact with the airman; however, he intentionally violated the  no  contact
order.

On 27 Feb 05, he delivered a racially divisive sermon  at  the  0930  Gospel
Service in the Chapel.

On 21 Oct 05, the Air Armament Center Commander  (AAC/CC)  notified  him  he
was initiating  discharge  against  him  with  his  commander’s  recommended
actions.  A Board of Inquiry (BOI) found the applicant  engaged  in  serious
and recurring misconduct  and  recommend  he  be  separated  with  an  UOTHC
service  characterization.   The  discharge  case  file  was  found  legally
sufficient and was forwarded to the Secretary of the  Air  Force  for  final
disposition.  On 23 May 06, the discharge authority directed  the  applicant
be discharged from the Air Force with an  UOTHC  discharge.   He  served  17
years and 26 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits C, D, E and F.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicant’s request  for  removal  of
the LOR.  DPSIM states the applicant was issued a LOR  for  engaging  in  an
unprofessional relationship with an enlisted female, disregarding  his  role
as chaplain, making inappropriate sexual comments and  engaging  in  abusive
behavior towards coworkers and subordinate. He acknowledged receipt  of  the
LOR and opted not to provide a response.

The complete DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for removal  of
the referral OPR.

DPSIDEP notes the applicant’s  contention  that  a  formal  and/or  informal
feedback was not performed; however, he provided a copy of a feedback  which
clearly addressed several  issues.   DPSIDEP  states  only  members  in  the
rating chain can confirm  if  a  feedback  was  provided.   The  information
provided during feedback sessions and the assessment on  evaluation  reports
may differ.  For example, if after a positive feedback session  the  ratee’s
performance deters, this information must  be  recorded  in  the  evaluation
report even when it disagrees with the previous feedback.  Also,  there  may
be occasions when feedback was  not  provided  during  a  reporting  period;
however, lack of feedback is not sufficient justification to  challenge  the
accuracy or justness of a report.  Evaluators  must  confirm  counseling  or
feedback was not provided and it directly resulted in an unfair  evaluation.
 There are no statements from his evaluators; therefore,  counseling  cannot
be substantiated.

DPSIDEP states an OPR only covers the  reporting  period  for  which  it  is
rendered and evaluates the performance reflected at that time.   Changes  in
supervisors and/or positions may produce a change in  performance  standards
depending on how well the individual adapts.

DPSIDEP notes the applicant’s contentions that the OPR contained  documented
administrative and factual errors.  DPSIDEP explains the start date for  the
contested report (16 Apr 04) began the day after the close out of  the  last
report regardless of the member’s Date Arrived Station (DAS)  (23  Jul  04).
The report closed out  exactly  one  year  from  the  last  report  and  is,
therefore, an annual report.

DPSIDEP states removal from duty does  not  necessarily  mean  a  Change  of
Report Official (CRO) report should be accomplished.  The applicant’s  rater
remained his rater until the 15 Apr 05 close-out date.  DPSIDEP  notes  that
although he may have held the Senior Protestant Chaplain  position  for  the
majority of the  reporting  period,  he  was  removed  from  that  position;
therefore, the OPR duty title was appropriate and listing both  duty  titles
is not authorized.

DPSIDEP notes the applicant’s  contention  that  the  unfilled  Section  IV,
Rater’s Comments sends a negative message  to  the  board.   DPSIDEP  opines
that comments in  this  block  are  limited  to  the  space  provided.   The
evaluator must document one minimum of line of performance however there  is
no requirement to utilize the entire space provided.  Additionally, as  long
as the comments are appropriate  and  not  prohibited,  the  evaluators  are
within the guideline of Air Force policy.

DPSIDEP states the section of the report completed  by  the  wing  commander
was completed as required and in accordance with Air Force Policy.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

DPSOS recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request  for  upgrade  of  his
discharge to honorable.

DPSOS states a  BOI  applies  a  standard  based  on  the  preponderance  of
evidence.  A preponderance of evidence  produces  the  stronger  impression,
has the greater weight and is more convincing as to its truth  when  weighed
against any evidence in opposition to it.  The BOI determined  the  evidence
presented formed a basis for the applicant’s discharge and  that  he  should
not be retained.  He was represented by counsel before the BOI and  the  Air
Force Discharge  Review  Board;  however,  the  evidence  submitted  by  the
applicant and counsel did not convince either board that the  applicant  did
not  engage  in  serious  and  reoccurring  misconduct  which  led  to   his
discharge.

The complete DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA opines the applicant has failed  to  prove
any material error or injustice related to the referenced documents  or  his
discharge.   He  committed  serious  acts  of  misconduct  and   substandard
performance.  He exercised his right to  a  BOI,  was  fully  and  zealously
represented by military counsel as well as civilian  counsel  hired  at  his
own expense and received full due process throughout the  proceedings.   The
BOI members found the preponderance  of  the  government’s  evidence  to  be
credible and  sufficient  to  support  the  findings  of  wrongdoing  and  a
discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The administrative  record
supports that determination.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant submits a nine-page statement dated 22 Jun 10.  He  reiterates
his earlier contentions; however, states he will introduce new  evidence  in
his favor.

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

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice.  We took notice of the complete  record  of
evidence, but we agree with the determinations and  recommendations  of  the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as
the primary basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been  the  victim
of an error or injustice.  We also took note of the applicant’s  allegations
regarding the proceedings and findings of the Discharge Review Board  (DRB);
however, based on our review of the DRB  decisional  rationale,  we  believe
the applicant’s substantial rights were not violated and the DRB’s  findings
and subsequent recommendation are supported by the evidence of  record.   We
further  noted  the  applicant’s  assertions  regarding   his   career-long,
exceptional record of performance as well  as  the  letters  of  support  he
provided.  Nevertheless, since we believe a preponderance  of  the  evidence
in this case supports the actions taken against him and that he  engaged  in
the  stated  misconduct,  it  is  our  determination  that   it   would   be
inappropriate to grant any of  the  relief  requested.   In  our  view,  the
applicant has not presented persuasive arguments that he did not  engage  in
improper conduct, rather his arguments appear to focus on the lack,  in  his
view, of any evidence that clearly proves he is guilty of the offenses.   We
also weighed his arguments that the action to administratively separate  him
was made due to lack of sufficient evidence to support an action such  as  a
court martial.  Even if we accepted this as true, use of the  administrative
process was not improper  since  it  was  authorized  by  pertinent  policy.
Additionally, we note that  the  discharge  action  was  determined  legally
sufficient after several legal reviews.   We  further  took  notice  of  the
applicant’s argument that the actions in  his  case  were  inequitable  when
compared with actions taken in cases with misconduct similar to that he  was
discharged for.  We do not find the evidence provided  in  support  of  this
argument supports that the  applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  error  or
injustice.  Even acknowledging that the handling  of  the  applicant’s  case
may have involved errors of procedure, we are still  not  persuaded  he  has
been the victim of errors or an injustice that would  warrant  granting  the
relief he is  seeking.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend that relief be granted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 15 Jul 10 and 20 Jul 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Panel Chair
      Member
      Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2008-01257:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 09, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIM, dated 4 May 09.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 20 Oct 09.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOS, dated 12 Apr 10.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 18 May 10.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 10.




                                   Panel Chair