RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04501 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His retired pay grade of lieutenant colonel be changed to 
colonel. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His request is based on the facts that he had attained the rank 
of colonel and had an outstanding career of service. There was 
a perceived incident at the end of his career that was 
misunderstood, exaggerated, and mischaracterized, which resulted 
in a retired grade determination of lieutenant colonel. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, his separation orders, performance reports, promotion 
recommendation forms (PRFs), promotion orders, medals, 
biography, and his career history. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 25 May 1974, the applicant was commissioned as an Air Force 
Reserve second lieutenant and on 31 July 1974 he entered active 
duty. 

 

He was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, having 
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 
1 December 1994. 

 

On 22 November 1996, the applicant received an Article 15 and an 
Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was established for violation 
of Article 132, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for 
Frauds against the United States. The specific reason for this 
action was: On divers occasions, between on or about 7 October 
1995 and on or about 26 June 1996, he prepared Department of 
Defense Forms 1351-2, Travel Voucher or Subvoucher, for 
presentation for approval or payment, made claims against the 
United States in the amount of $5,575.14, which claims were 


false and fraudulent in the amount of $923.03, in that he 
unlawfully claimed per diem, lodging, and other temporary duty 
(TDY) expenses for dates he should have been in a leave status, 
and was then known by him to be false and fraudulent. 

 

His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $2,813 per month for 
two months and a reprimand. The portion of punishment which 
extended to forfeitures in excess of $2,351 per month for two 
months ($462 per month for two months) was suspended until 
20 May 1997, at which time it was to be remitted without further 
action unless sooner vacated. On 25 November 1996, the 
applicant accepted the Article 15, UCMJ. On 2 December 1996, 
ALC/JA found it to be legally sufficient. 

 

On 17 December 1996, the applicant was notified of his 
commander’s intent to initiate an officer grade determination 
(OGD) action, in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3203, Service 
Retirements. On 19 December 1996, the applicant acknowledged 
receipt of the notification of OGD action and submitted a 
statement in his own behalf. 

 

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. In addition, JA 
recommended the package be forwarded to the Air Education and 
Training Command commander (AETC/CC) with a recommendation that 
the applicant be retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. 
The AFRS/CC recommended to the AETC/CC that the applicant be 
retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. 

 

On 2 January 1997, AETC/JA reviewed the case file and found it 
to be legally sufficient. JA recommended the case file be 
forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) with a 
recommendation that the applicant be retired in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel. 

 

On 16 January 1997, AETC/CV recommended to the SAF Personnel 
Council (SAFPC) that the applicant be retired in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel. 

 

On 27 January 1997, the SAF found the member did not serve 
satisfactorily in the higher grade of colonel within the meaning 
of Section 1370(A) (1), Title 10, United States Code. However, 
the Secretary found the member did serve satisfactorily in the 
rank of lieutenant colonel, within the meaning of the 
aforementioned provision of law and directed he be retired in 
that grade. 

 

The Secretary further determined the action did not excuse any 
indebtedness to the United States government. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AF/DPO recommends denial. DPO states IAW AFI 36-3203, the unit 
commander or other appropriate authority (including an authority 
designated for this purpose by the SAF or designee) will 
initiate an OGD if, within two years of the date of the 
application for retirement, the officer received non-judicial 
punishment pursuant to an Article 15, UCMJ. 

 

The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states the advisory from AF/DPO tells only part of 
the facts. He admits the Article 15 was issued and he 
voluntarily retired. However, he states the administrative 
action was taken because an investigation by the Office of 
Special Investigations (OSI) and Judge Advocate General (JAG) 
determined that no laws or regulations had, in fact, been 
violated. That is why no judicial action was taken. In lieu of 
that, and based solely on the perception of possible wrongdoing, 
the Article 15 was issued. There was no criminal activity or 
violation of an Air Force Instruction (AFI) and everything he 
did was legal, however, the general was concerned about the 
perception. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission 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 he did not serve 
satisfactorily in the grade of colonel be reversed contending 
that there was a perceived incident at the end of his 
outstanding career that was misunderstood, exaggerated, and 
mischaracterized. The applicant also states there was no 
criminal activity or violation of an Air Force Instruction and 
states everything he did was legal. He claims that “extensive 
investigation by the OSI and JAG” found that no laws and 
regulations were violated by his actions. As such he was given 
the Article 15, which was the basis for the OGD, solely on the 
“perception” of wrongdoing on his part. However, the applicant 
has not presented evidence to corroborate his claims. We note 


that in the nonjudicial punishment forum, the applicant had the 
right to refuse punishment under Article 15 and to demand trial 
by court-martial, to submit matters for the commander to 
consider and to appeal any punishment that the applicant 
considered unjust or disproportionate to the offense. The 
applicant has not provided evidence to show that he was not 
accorded all his rights when notified of his commander’s intent 
to punish him under Article 15. As such, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of AF/DPO and adopt the rationale 
expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not 
been the victim of error or injustice. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-04501 in Executive Session on 21 and 28 July 
2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04501 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 December 2010, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. AF/DPO, Letter, dated 27 January 2011. 

 Exhibit D. SAF/MRBR, Letter, dated 17 June 2011, w/atch. 

 Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 15 July 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair