RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00354 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Any derogatory information be removed from his official 
military record. 

 

2. He be reinstated to the grade of colonel (0-6) rather than 
lieutenant colonel (0-5) and receive all pay allowances 
associated with that grade. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a 12-page brief, the applicant’s counsel makes the following 
key contentions on his behalf: 

 

He is entitled to the requested relief because he is not guilty 
of conduct unbecoming of an officer; the fraternization charge 
was unsubstantiated; his punishment is disproportionate to the 
offense; and the interest of equity and fairness would be best 
served by appropriately recognizing and compensating him for his 
service. 

 

While it may have been inappropriate or unsuitable for him to 
interact with a married woman, it does not rise to the level of 
more serious conduct that is dishonoring or disgraceful. 
Although he was married at the time, his wife had not lived with 
him for over a year and they were living separate lives. 
Additionally, he had no reason to know the woman was married 
because she was not wearing a wedding ring; she had prior 
relationships with multiple individuals, and she was openly 
living with an enlisted member on base. There is no evidence of 
an actual physical relationship between him and the woman; 
however, there is substantial evidence that they carried on 
communications of a suggestive nature, the discussions were about 
the future and made no reference to current inappropriate 
behavior. 

 

Concerning the fraternization charge, there is insufficient 
evidence that fraternization occurred. In this situation, an 
enlisted member was having problems so he came to speak to the 
applicant. The applicant listened and made sure the enlisted 
member got home safely. There is nothing wrong with an officer 


counseling an enlisted member. Unfortunately, the enlisted 
member became emotional and drunk, but the applicant did the 
right thing by taking care of the enlisted member. The charge 
also claims he discussed his personal relationship with the 
enlisted member; however, the evidence does not support that 
theory. 

 

The punishment for the offenses was “disproportional to the 
charge and not congruent to the punishments of others”. The 
applicant’s counsel references a previous case from 1997 that 
involved General R stating he was being looked at for a possible 
promotion when a past affair became known. In that case, the 
Secretary of Defense defended the General’s candidacy by stating 
“The need for top military officers to serve as moral beacons 
‘does not come from notions of perfection,’ but from possessing 
‘the character to acknowledge our mistakes honestly and then make 
things right.’” 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from 
the investigation and his personnel file. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) made a grade determination 
and retired the applicant in the grade of lieutenant colonel on 
30 Sep 09. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial. JAJM states the applicant was 
investigated for having an inappropriate relationship with a 
civilian female dependent spouse of an active duty enlisted 
member. The applicant’s commander found him guilty and offered 
him nonjudicial punishment for wrongfully and dishonorably 
engaging in an unprofessional relationship of a sexual nature 
with a civilian nonappropriated fund employee, a woman married to 
an active duty member of which conduct was unbecoming an officer 
and a gentleman, and was in violation of Article 133 of the UCMJ. 

 

The applicant accepted the Article 15 and waived his right to 
demand trial by court-martial. He made oral and written 
presentations to his commander; however, after considering the 
evidence and the matters presented, the commander found he 


committed the alleged offense and imposed as punishment 
forfeiture of $2,500.00 pay per month for two months and a 
reprimand. The applicant appealed the punishment to his 
commander and then to the appeal authority. Both commanders 
denied the applicant’s appeal. After a legal review, the 
punishment was found to be legally sufficient. 

 

The applicant argues that he has been punished disproportionately 
“for a minor mistake.” However, the applicant admits, “sending a 
suggestive text message” to the woman in question, but says this 
does not amount to the charged offense. 

 

JAJM states that despite the volume of material submitted, there 
is little information supplied that supports the requested 
action. JAJM believes the commander was in the best position to 
weigh all evidence, make informed findings of fact, and arrive at 
a suitable punishment. In addition, the Article 15 underwent 
legal reviews at two different levels of command, both of which 
were found to be legally sufficient. JAJM also notes that “an 
unprofessional relationship of a sexual nature” does not require 
proof of “an actual physical relationship” as argued by the 
applicant. These facts are more than sufficient to allow his 
commander to have found that he engaged in the charged conduct. 
The commander’s decision and subsequent punishment were both 
within the discretionary limits of his authority. The applicant 
was afforded all rights under Article 15, UCMJ, and there is no 
evidence the commander acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or that 
he violated the applicant’s due process rights. 

 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states the SecAF had 
sufficient evidence to make a determination whether or not the 
applicant’s service in the grade of colonel was satisfactory. 
The applicant has provides no evidence to reverse the Secretary 
of the Air Force’s determination of retiring him in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel based upon the Article 15, UCMJ, in which the 
applicant accepted his commander’s judgment as to guilt or 
innocence. 

 

The DPSOR complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 15 Apr 11 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an 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. 

 

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-2011-00354 in Executive Session on 20 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011-
00354 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 22 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair