RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 
 
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-02586 
  COUNSEL:   
  HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  The findings of substantiation by the Inspector General of the Air Force (SAF/IG) on the allegations against him in Report of Investigation (ROI) S6780P be set aside. 
 
2.  The letter of counseling issued to him by the AFRC commander (AFRC/CC) be set aside. 
 
3.  The officer grade determination (OGD) on him initiated by AFRC/CC be set aside. 
 
4.  The findings upon which the OGD Board of Officers reached its decision to recommend his retirement in the grade of O-7 be set aside. 
 
5.  The final decision that he did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of O-8 be set aside as unjust and unduly harsh. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
In a 23-page brief of counsel, with 12 attachments, the applicant’s counsel asserts the applicant is the victim of the following errors and injustices: 
 
1.  The Misapplication of the Preponderance of Evidence Standard.  The IG Investigating Officer (IO) assigned to the applicant’s case did not substantiate that the applicant used his office for private gain.  However, the quality review conducted by the Director of Senior Official Inquiries (herein referred to as Director) improperly, and without basis, accused the seasoned investigator of “misapplying” the evidentiary standard in reaching his findings.  The IO assigned to the case conducted an exhaustive investigation over a span of five months.  He personally interviewed 25 witnesses involved in the case, taking in not only their spoken words, but impressions that are useful and can only be garnered in one-on-one interviews.  So valuable is this measure of truth and judgment, courts with authority to change findings in proceedings are loath to do so on the basis of written records alone.  Not only did the Director of Senior Official Inquiries disagree with the investigator’s findings, he accused the seasoned IO, without noting any basis, of “misapplying” the evidentiary standard for reaching his findings.  When he could not get the investigator to reverse the well reasoned findings of his ROI, the Director did not merely express disagreement, he unjustifiably attacked the investigator’s methodology.  That was wrong, and it is unclear how the Director’s treatment of the investigator’s ROI affected others who read it, including the IG, AFRC/CC, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC), and of course, the Secretary.   
 
2.  The IO Failed to Address the “Created the Appearance Issue.”  The Director makes this allegation against the IO and asserts that the evidence of record (not specified) indicates both subjectively and objectively the applicant … violated [5 C.F.R. 2635.702(d)].  First, it is clear in the ROI and questioning of witnesses that the IO pursued the matter of “perceptions of impropriety” in the applicant’s involvement in the key decisions of this case and resolved the issue in favor of the applicant.  Second, the Hotline complaint against the applicant was quite specific in what it alleged, and it did not allege “appearance” issues.  Finally, 5 C.F.R. 2635.702(d) and its incorporation of section 2635.502 require a stretch to apply to the applicant.  Carefully read the provisions.  Would a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts really conclude that the applicant’s involvement in his son’s early career had anything to do with advancing the financial interests of his son.  
 
3.  The Applicant Misused His Military Email Account with Signature Block.  On a few occasions, the applicant communicated with other military members through email on matters related to his son’s recruitment into the Reserve and his progress in OTS.  The Director suggests there is something untoward about the limited use of military email accounts for personal matters.  He produces no authority for that proposition.  As for the applicant’s use of his rank and position in those emails, there is nothing in 5 C.F.R. 2635.702(e) that prohibits an employee … from using … term(s) of address or rank in connection with a personal activity. 
 
4.  The Applicant Used His Executive Officer to Follow Progress of His Son at OTS.  The Director makes this assertion.  However, counsel attaches a memorandum from the applicant’s only executive officer at AFRC denying any contact between him and OTS staff concerning the progress of the applicant’s son while he attended OTS.  This officer was not interviewed during the investigation into the allegations against the applicant.  His statement should be considered direct evidence and given great weight. 
 
5.  The Applicant Became Improperly Involved in His Son’s Proposed OTS Elimination.  After the applicant’s son entered OTS, the son had trouble from the start and was pulled from training due to failing three measurement devices.  The applicant then planned a visit to his son to provide love and emotional support.  The applicant emailed the training squadron commander that he would be on station and the purpose of his visit.  The training squadron commander responded he appreciated the applicant making the visit and that he had seen such visits help trainees.  After the visit, the applicant’s son made a personal appeal to the training squadron commander and based on support from the son’s instructors decided to recycle the son into another class. 
 
After a month in the new class, the applicant’s son prepared for and gave an advocacy briefing, one he had given and passed before.  He was told by his instructor he did a good job and had passed, but, days later, was informed by his instructor that his briefing had been rescored and he had failed.  Since this was a fourth failure, he understood that a fourth failure after recycling most always resulted in elimination.  The decision was the OTS commander. 
 
A disenrollment package was initiated by the applicant’s son’s flight commander.  However, unaware of it at the time, and having spoken to his son about again being pulled from training, the applicant contacted the OTS commander by email as a father and fellow Airman, trying to understand confusing and contradictory information.  The OTS commander responded he had not yet reviewed the package, but two days later, after having learned that a disenrollment package was moving along, the applicant emailed him again.  He told the OTS commander he did not understand how things had gotten to this point, but clearly trusted the judgment of the commander.  The OTS commander felt uncomfortable about the second email and contacted his superior, the Air Force Officer Accession and Training School (AFOATS) commander.  At about this time the applicant called the AFOATS commander and expressed concern his son had been removed from training.  The AFOATS commander testified the applicant understood there was a review process and hoped for a fair and expedited process.  The AFOATS commander testified there was no leaning on him to do anything. 
 
After the OTS commander decided to proceed with the disenrollment, the AFOATS vice commander recommended he meet with the commander.  However, it is significant that the AFOATS commander did not request the meeting, but met with the OTS commander and other key players based on the OTS commander’s request.  After reviewing the documentation for the advocacy briefing, the basis for the disenrollment, the AFOATS commander concluded it would simply not withstand scrutiny.  While not common, he reversed the OTS commander’s decision in the applicant’s son’s case. 
 
A few of those involved in the meeting testified the AFOTS commander’s decision in the matter hurt morale amongst OTS cadre.  However, it was probably due to their sloppiness; there was nothing the applicant had done to affect the AFOATS commander’s decision.  It is important to the understanding of this issue that the AFOATS commander would have never been involved in the decision if the OTS commander had not been somewhat concerned about the problems inherent in the disenrollment package. 
 
The IO concluded in his ROI that the AFOATS commander’s decision to retain the applicant’s son was reasonable and his testimony denying undue pressure from the applicant is key to this issue. 
 
6.  The Applicant Attempted to Influence UPT Tracking Decisions Regarding His Son.  The applicant’s son began having difficulties early on in pilot training, both in academics and flying; and, as he tracked through training was judged to be at or near the bottom of his class.  In April 2008, AETC formally notified the son’s unit by email he would not be recommended for follow-on fighter training.  While the email made clear the son should not end up in fighters as an end assignment, it did not make clear he should not enter the follow-on phase of T-38 training.  As the date for entering the advanced phase of training approached, the situation grew confusing, mainly because of differing perspectives and policies involving two commands, AETC and AFRC.  It was AETC’s policy that only students in the top-half of their primary class could track to the T-38 advanced phase.  On the other hand Air Reserve Components had been permitted to determine the disposition of their students.   
 
The Director asserted in his Addendum to the ROI the applicant attempted to keep his son on track for T-38 training by seeking to influence the decision making process.  In support of his assertion, the Director specified the applicant’s contact and inquiries to AETC, the Flying Training Wing, and Fighter Wing led a Numbered Air Force commander and the Reserve Command Operations Chief of Staff to intervene on behalf of the applicant for his son’s tracking to fighters.  Counsel states this is not true.  He states there is no evidence the applicant personally contacted AETC or anyone at the training wing regarding a tracking or any other decision.  The evidence also does not support that the applicant led the AFRC Chief of Operations or the Numbered Air Force Commander to intervene in behalf of his son.  Counsel notes that the Numbered Air Force commander has submitted a statement of support for the applicant.    
 
7.  The Applicant Improperly Impacted the Hiring Process.  The Director asserts in the Addendum to the ROI the applicant used his rank and position to influence the decision by the Fighter Wing (FW) commander to hire the applicant’s son for a fighter pilot position.  He further asserts the ROI substantiates the FW commander overrode the recommendation of subordinate officers based on the applicant’s military status and possible repercussions to future decisions in which the applicant could be involved that could adversely affect the unit.  Counsel opines these allegations are beyond unsubstantiated as the IO concluded, they are insulting and libelous.  Counsel goes on to explain the process and sequence of events that led to the applicant’s son’s hiring.  The FW commander also provides a statement which addresses his decision to hire the applicant’s son.   
 
8.  The Memorandum from SAF/IG to SAF/OS and AF/CC Forwarding the ROI.  Counsel addresses the determination by SAF/IG that the applicant’s failure to recuse himself from appointing the president of the Central Selection Board that  considered his son’s application for an officer position in the Air Force Reserve was evidence of the violation of the standard in 5 C.F.R. 2635.702.  Counsel notes that according to AFRC instruction, the president of Selection Boards convened to consider applications for officer positions in the Air Force Reserve is appointed by AFRC/CV and that no alternative to the Vice Commander is listed in the instruction.  Counsel states the applicant did not appoint the President of the Selection Board. 
 
9.  The Letter of Counseling.  The letter of counseling (LOC) issued to the applicant was based on allegations as substantiated by the Director of Senior Official Inquiries and the Air Force IG.  Counsel notes the commander issuing the applicant LOC went a step further by stating the applicant’s actions had “detracted from mission accomplishment.”  Referencing the arguments made above, counsel states there are significant errors and injustices related to the substantiated findings by the Director and IG.  The commander’s reliance on those findings is reason enough to set aside this administrative action.  Additionally, the ROI does not establish that the applicant was a distraction to mission accomplishment. 
 
10.  Initiation of Officer Grade Determination Action.  Counsel asserts the decision to initiate an OGD was based on the same allegations as substantiated by the Director and AF IG.  As such, the same issues with regard to significant errors and injustices exist.  Additionally, counsel states the applicant obtained a highly expurgated copy of the Board of Officers memorandum and other documents related to the Secretary’s action on the OGD.  There are several errors and injustices contained in the material given to he and the applicant.  Counsel notes six areas of concern. 
 
   (1)  On the hiring issue, the memorandum states the interview given by the FW commander was a favor to the applicant.  Counsel states this suggests that the favor was requested, when the evidence is clearly to the contrary. 
 
   (2)  On the hiring issue, the memorandum states incorrectly the Director of AFRC Recruiting received a call from the applicant to get in touch with the FW commander and tell him the applicant’s son had done all requested of him to be hired.  
   (3)  The memorandum correctly points out that 22 of 23 applicants were selected by the AFRC PTS/UFT Selection Board, but it failed to indicate the applicant’s son scored in the middle of the group. 
 
   (4)  The memorandum references the e-mail to the OTS commander advising of an intended visit to the son to provide love and support at a time he was facing elimination, but it fails to point out the commander encouraged the visit. 
 
   (5)  The memorandum states the applicant’s executive officer called about the applicant’s son being disenrolled from OTS, but the executive officer denies such communication. 
 
   (6)  The memorandum implies the applicant directed a subordinate at AFRC to contact AETC in order to determine whether the applicant’s son could be tracked to T-38s because the applicant wanted him to go to T-38s.  The fact is, after a determination was made the son could not take the fighter track, the Numbered Air Force commander asked the applicant to determine what his son wanted, and that is what the commander was acting upon in his contact with AETC on the tracking/assignment issue. 
 
Counsel states the applicant must be provided information concerning the following seven matters: 
 
   (1)  The OGD Board’s findings with respect to the applicant’s alleged misconduct. 
 
   (2)  The OGD Board’s determination of the impact on military effectiveness of each finding of misconduct. 
 
   (3)  The past cases involving similar misconduct that the OGD Board considered. 
 
   (4)  The OGD Board’s assessment of the applicant’s service, in particular over the ten years he served as a major general. 
 
   (5)  Given there was a majority vote recommendation for action, was the vote 2-1 in favor of retaining applicant in grade or in favor of reducing him in grade? 
 
   (6)  If there was a minority position that recommended the applicant be retained in grade, was it summarized in the Memorandum for the Secretary? 
 
   (7)  With respect to the three-page memorandum prepared by the Office of General Counsel, ostensibly for consideration by the Secretary, the Air Staff should provide all material supporting whatever recommendation was made.  While the attorney-client relationship should be respected as to the ultimate recommendation made by OGC to the Secretary, the applicant is entitled to know the basis for that recommendation, as well as underlying findings. 
 
11.  The Action of the Secretary of the Air Force.  The Secretary’s reliance on the findings as substantiated by the Director of Senior Official Inquiries and the Air Force IG is reason enough to set aside his action to transfer the applicant to the retired reserve in the grade of Brigadier General (O-7); however, the highly expurgated material concerning the OGD process provided to the applicant, precludes a fair assessment of whether there were other basis to claim the Secretary was not properly advised.  Counsel states that two injustices are clear from the provided material and suggest the Secretary was not fully informed in making his judgment.  First, the Secretary was apparently not provided a copy of the ROI with the analysis and findings of the IO who did not substantiate the allegations against the applicant.  Second, from the vote sheet, it appears the recommended action was reached by majority vote.  The Secretary was not advised in the staff summary sheet transmitting the applicant’s OGD for action that the OGD Board’s findings and recommendation were by majority decision.  If there was a majority vote and the vote went against the applicant, the Secretary was entitled to know there was a minority position to retire the applicant in grade and the supporting rationale. 
 
12.  The Applicant’s Retirement as a Brigadier General was Excessively Harsh and Unjust.  Counsel opines that even assuming the Board finds the allegations of misconduct against the applicant were fairly substantiated by SAF/IG, there was a basis for the letter of counseling, and the OGD was free of error and injustice, the applicant’s retirement in the grade of brigadier general was excessively harsh, and therefore unjust, for the following reasons: 
 
     1.  The applicant had a truly outstanding Air Force career that spanned nearly 40 years and he performed faithfully and exceedingly well, certainly “satisfactorily” within the meaning of the statute and Air Force instruction, in the grade of major general for over ten years.  In addition to significant highlights of the applicant’s career, counsel notes 1) comments made about the applicant by the AFRC commander during the timeframe he was allegedly committing misconduct in behalf of his son, “[h]e is the best Vice Commander in our history.” 2) comments made by the AFRC commander that issued five months after issuing the letter of counseling to the applicant, “[h]e is a warrior and leader with abilities to see issues strategically, then expertly execute… [with] impacts felt throughout the Air Force.” 
 
     2.  The commander that issued the applicant a letter of counseling and, who initiated the OGD process, recommended the applicant be retired as a major general.  The commander supports the applicant’s appeal to the Board to reinstate his rank of major general.  Counsel refers the Board to the statements included with this application in behalf of the applicant. 
 
     3.  The financial impact of the OGD is unconscionable.  The applicant will lose a projected $280,000 over 20 years. 
 
     4.  Counsel indicates they are aware of no OGD cases with less aggravated circumstances that resulted in a grade loss.   
 
 
In support of the applicant’s appeal, counsel submits a brief of counsel with attachments. 
 
Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
Based on an anonymous complaint filed with the DoD /IG Hotline, SAF/IG conducted an investigation into the allegation the applicant had used his position as the vice commander of a major command to improperly influence his son’s evaluations at officer training school (OTS) and undergraduate pilot training (UPT).  The investigating officer (IO) examined four specific ways in which the applicant potentially used his position to wrongfully influence the Air Force career of his son: 1) in the decision of a fighter wing unit to recruit and hire the son into the Reserves, 2) in the decision by a Command Central Selection Board to select the son for the Reserves with a fighter pilot slot, 3) in the decision to retain and eventually graduate/commission the son from OTS, and 4) in the decision to track the son into the advanced flying training program in UPT.   
 
The IO concluded the allegations against the applicant were not substantiated.  However, the Inspector General (TIG) ultimately non-concurred with the IO’s findings based on the Director of Senior Official Inquiries’ finding that a preponderance of the evidence supported substantiation of the allegations against the applicant.  The Inspector General specifically found the following evidence substantiated the complaint: 1) the applicant’s failure to recuse himself from appointing the president of the Central Selection Board considering his son’s application for a Reserve position and fighter pilot slot, 2) his use of his official email, his executive officer, and making direct phone calls when he learned his son might be disenrolled, 3) the applicant’s use of his staff and subordinates to improperly influence the decision process to allow his son to be placed on the fighter-bomber training track when the son’s class standing was not high enough to be placed on that track. 
 
Upon receipt of the substantiated SAF/IG investigation, the major command commander issued the applicant a letter of counseling for misusing his position to try to influence the career of his son.  Also, because of the substantiated investigation, the commander initiated an OGD.  The commander recommended the applicant be retired in the grade of O-8.   
 
Per direction of the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) convened a board of officers (OGD Board) to consider the applicant’s case on 10 September 2009.  In determining whether an officer has provided satisfactory service, the Council considers the nature and length of the officer’s misconduct, the impact the misconduct has on military effectiveness, the quality of the officer’s service, past cases involving similar misconduct, and the recommendations of the officer’s chain of command.  The OGD Board recommended the applicant be transferred to the retired reserve in the grade of major general. 
 
With regard to the allegations substantiated by the SAF/IG, the OGD Board found the respondent’s failure to recuse himself from appointing the president of the Central Selection Board to be the least egregious of the offenses, as it was found to be more of a pro forma or ministerial act by the respondent as opposed to an act designed to affect the outcome of the Board.  Nevertheless, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, the best practice would have been to recuse himself from that particular board. 
 
The Board of Officers found the applicant’s actions, personally making direct phone calls to subordinate commanders at the Holm Center and Officer Training School (OTS), in an effort to determine his son’s retainability at OTS constituted a serious lack of judgment.  The Board found that at best, the respondent did a poor job of walking a fine line between his role as the Command vice commander and being a concerned father—and at worst, the respondent believed his rank and position would influence the OTS chain of command to permit his son to graduate OTS. 
 
The OGD Board found it troubling that the applicant, after inserting himself into the process from the beginning of his son’s Air Force career, that the applicant refused to accept AETC’s conclusions that, for safety reasons, the applicant’s son would not be tracked into T-38s—and attempted to intervene in the process.  However, despite the applicant’s efforts, the process worked and his son did not end up tracking to T-38s. 
 
The OGD Board considered the relevant factors in determining whether the applicant’s service was satisfactory while in the grade of major general.  There was no doubt on the part of the OGD Board that the applicant’s more than ten years of duty performance in the grade of major general was nothing short of superb.  The OGD Board noted that the applicant’s commander recommended be retired in grade of major general, when balancing the applicant’s  otherwise ten successful years in grade.  In evaluating the length of the misconduct, the OGD Board considered the applicant’s ten years of otherwise clearly outstanding duty performance in the grade of major general (with nearly four years of such service on active duty) in very challenging times to be significant.  The OGD Board found the impact of the applicant’s actions on military effectiveness to be the gravest concern, especially in the message the Air Force sends to others.  Although the applicant’s actions were unacceptable, they were isolated to a 14-month period, which the OGD Board did not believe outweighed his otherwise honorable ten years of service as a major general.  The OGD Board also reviewed previous similar general officer OGD cases.  Based on the totality of the circumstances, the OGD Board agreed with the applicant’s chain of command that he be found to have satisfactorily served in the grade of major general and recommended he be transferred to the retire reserve in the grade of major general. 
 
The Secretary of the Air Force General Counsel reviewed the Board of Officer’s OGD report and recommendation.  He did not concur with their recommendation and recommended to the Secretary of the Air Force that the applicant be retired in the grade of brigadier general. 
 
The General Counsel stated it was clear the applicant improperly used his position to influence major decisions made regarding his son at four critical junctures: 
 
   1)  The decision by a Reserve Fighter Wing to recruit/hire his son; 
   2)  The decision by the AFRC board to select his son for a Reserve pilot slot; 
   3)  The decision to retain his son and eventually graduate/commission him at OTS; and 
   4)  The decision to track his son into the T-1 advance flying training program in UPT. 
 
The General Counsel further indicated that as egregious as the applicant’s actions were, his primary concern was the “message” that was sent to the less senior officers at each juncture when their appropriate recommendations were overruled by improper influence.  The General Counsel provides an analysis of the applicant’s actions and the potential consequences and outcomes. 
 
Like the OGD Board, the General Counsel found the applicant’s actions on military effectiveness to be the gravest concern, especially in the message the Air Force sends to others.  However, he did not agree with the tenor of the OGD Board’s opinion that appears to give the applicant the benefit of doubt that he may have simply misjudged the fine line between his official responsibilities and love for his son.  The General Counsel opines the applicant persistently abused his position for personal gain.  He did not agree that the applicant’s otherwise excellent service in the grade of major general outweighs this behavior. 
 
The General Counsel further advised the Secretary that the egregiousness of the applicant’s calculated actions sent the message that there is one set of rules for general officers and their families and another set of rules for everyone else. The General Counsel also noted that a summary of general officer OGD cases decided through the past decade was provided to the OGD Board; however, none of them concerned a fact situation similar to the applicant’s case. 
 
The General Counsel recommended the Secretary sign the instrument prepared for his signature determining the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of major general, but did serve satisfactorily in the grade of brigadier general, and that he be transferred to the retired reserve in the grade of brigadier general. 
 
In an order, dated 6 October 2009, the Secretary found that the applicant should not be transferred to the retired reserve in grade (major general).  Further, he found that overall, he did serve satisfactorily in the grade of brigadier general (O-7).  He directed the applicant be transferred to the Retired Reserve as a brigadier general (The OGD Board’s findings and recommendation, the SAF/GC review and SECAF decision are at Exhibit B). 
 
The applicant retired in the grade of O-7 (brigadier general) on 29 March 2010. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ USAF/JAA recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  JAA states that since the investigation findings are legally sufficient, they find no reason in law or equity, to recommend disturbing the findings of the SAF/IG investigation and the ultimate decision by the Secretary to retire the applicant in the grade of O-7. 
 
The complete HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
COUNSEL'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The applicant has been the victim of grievous errors and injustices as were detailed in his application.  Both he and the Board deserve better than the “Amen Chorus” the JAA advisory composed.  JAA disagrees with the preponderance of evidence he and his client are contending by simply advocating the SAF/IG analysis and findings.  There is no evidence that the applicant influenced a single decision that was made.  In fact, the evidence is quite to the contrary.   
 
In their memorandum to the Secretary concerning the applicant’s OGD, SAF/GC launched an outrageous, factually inaccurate, innuendo-laden attack on the applicant and other senior officers associated with this case.  Their advice was unquestionably pivotal in the Secretary’s adverse decision.  SAF/GC urged, successfully as it turns out, that the Secretary ignore the recommendations of the AFTC Commander and SAFPC that the applicant be retired in the grade of major general.  The memorandum contained the only advice the Secretary ever received not to retire the applicant in grade.  Neither the Air Force nor the Secretary was well served by this memorandum, and the applicant was unfairly treated in and by it.  There is no way the Secretary could have decided the applicant’s superb service as a major general for a decade warranted anything less than retirement in that grade were it not for the advice contained in the GC memorandum.  Some of the issues in this case are complex, and the Board would greatly benefit from listening to the applicant and witnesses that he would present.  Given what has been done and decided in this case behind closed doors already, a personal appearance hearing is in the best interest of us all.   
 
The counsel’s complete rebuttal, with attachment, 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 an injustice.  In reviewing this case the Board considered the fact that the final decision to retire the applicant in the lower grade of Brigadier General was made by the Secretary of the Air Force.  In coming to his decision, the Secretary weighed recommendations in favor of the applicant, recommendations by the applicant’s commander, the SAFPC board of officers recommendation to retire the applicant in the higher grade, recommendations against the applicant, and the recommendation of the Air Force General Counsel to retire the applicant in the lower grade, but the final decision was his.  While acknowledging this Board is an extension of the Secretary’s authority, we also recognize that when the evidence of record establishes an applicant is a victim of injustice, this Board is statutorily mandated to recommend full and fitting relief, regardless of who has been involved in the case.  With this in mind, we thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and the arguments made on behalf of the applicant by counsel.  The evidence of record shows that actions in this case took a turn not in favor of the applicant when the initial favorable findings of the investigating officer in an IG investigation were not accepted by the IG Director of Senior Official Inquiries, and based on his recommendation, subsequently not accepted by the Air Force IG as well.  We note the view of the applicant’s counsel that the Director’s treatment of the IG Report of Investigation was wrong; however, we are not persuaded that the Director’s actions were unreasonable or exceeded the authority vested in his position.  Despite the substantiation of several allegations against the applicant, his commander and, subsequently, the SAFPC Board of Officers recommended the applicant retire in the higher grade.  However, we would note that in our view these recommendations favorable to the applicant were not based on a determination the applicant had not conducted himself inappropriately, rather that the applicant’s distinguished service in the grade of Major General warranted, in their view, retirement in the higher grade.  Notwithstanding the strong arguments of the applicant’s counsel in defense of the applicant’s actions, we too were persuaded by the total evidence of record that the applicant did engage in inappropriate conduct in this matter.  As such, we find that the applicant’s commander’s action to issue a letter of counseling should not be set aside as requested and the commander’s action to initiate an OGD was also appropriate.  Counsel opines that probably the single greatest influence on the Secretary in making his decision was the memorandum written to him by the Air Force General Counsel.  Counsel asserts that the General Counsel’s Memorandum contained errors detailed in the Counsel Brief he provided to the Board.  We reviewed these alleged errors, but are not persuaded that these issues undermine the findings substantiated by the Air Force IG.  We would point out again that even the Board of Officers determined the applicant’s actions in several instances crossed the line.  Counsel makes strong arguments that the General Counsel inappropriately set the stage for the Secretary to make the wrong decision in the applicant’s case by presenting erroneous information and drawing conclusions that the facts of the case do not support.  Counsel argues that those who disagree with his analysis are wrong when in several instances they come to conclusions by drawing inferences he is unwilling to draw.  He then bemoans the fact that these conclusions are not proven when in several instances he is merely indicating he does not agree with their view of the available evidence. Counsel sums up his view of the General Counsel Memorandum by stating that it did not serve the Secretary or the Air Force well.  While conceding that the applicant’s counsel may have accurately highlighted points of fact subject to being disputed regarding the findings in the applicant’s case, we again reiterate that the evidence shows that those with the responsibility of reviewing the facts and circumstances of this case to make a recommendation on the proper action to be taken, concluded the applicant’s conduct in this matter was inappropriate.  The disagreement centers on the singular issue of the weight of this inappropriate conduct in determining the appropriate grade in which the applicant satisfactorily served.  We do not agree with the applicant’s counsel’s conclusion that the Secretary was improperly influenced and led to make his decision in this case.  While the General Counsel did make strong remarks and some of the information presented as fact may be subject to argument, and 
 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02586 in Executive Session on 10 May 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 , Chair 
 , Member 
 , Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02586: 
 
Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 10, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit B.  Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 1 Mar 11, w/atchs.  
Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Mar 11. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, Counsel, dated 18 Apr 11, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
      
        Chair