AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD 

FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) 

TYPE UOTH 

X 
NAME OF COUNSEL AND OR ORGANIZATION 

PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

YES 

No 
X 

GRADE 

CAPT 

1 

RECORD REVIEW 

ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION  OF COUNSEL 

MEMBER SITTING 

HON 

I 

GEN 

I  UOTHC 

OTHER 

I  DENY 

I 

-1..-..-....-..-..----------. 

, - - - - - - - - - - -  

ISSUES  A92.21 
A92.19 
A02.19 
A02.25 
A93.21 

I  11 Mav 2006 

I 

I 

INDEXNUMBER 

A60.00 

1  I  ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 
2  (  APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 
3  1  LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 
4 
BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 
COUNSEL'S  RELEASE TO THE BOARD 
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF 
PERSONAL APPEARANCE 
I  TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE 

5 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2006-00009 

I 

I 

APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND T m  BOARD'S DECISIONAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

Case heard at Washington, D.C. 

Advise applicant of the decision of the Board and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR. 

Names and votes will be made available to the applicant at the applicant's  request. 

.

.

-

.

.

-

.

.

.

.

-

-
-
NORSEMENT 

-

-

-

-

-
-
-- 

.

.

.

.

-

I  C -

I  IUi 
k  -- 
I 

SAFIMRBR 
550 C STREET WEST. SUITE 40 
RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 

AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 

-

.

.

.

.

-

.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

DATE: 5 / 1 5 f i - - - - '  

FROM: 

I 
(EF-V2) 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW  BOARD 
1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR 
ANDREWS AYE, MD 20762-7002 

Previous edition will be used 

1 

1 

I 

I 

I 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 

CASE NUMBER 

FD-2006-00009 

GENERAL:  The  applicant appeals  for upgrade  of discharge to  honorable  and to change the  reason and 
authority for the discharge. 

The  applicant  appeared  and  testified  before  the  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB),  without  counsel,  at 
Andrews AFB on 1 1 May 2006. 

The following additional exhibits were submitted at the hearing: 

Exhibit # 5:  Letters of Appreciation (12 pages) 

The attached brief contains available pertinent data on the applicant and the factors leading to the discharge. 

FINDINGS:  Upgrade of discharge and change of reason and authority for discharge are denied. 

The  Board  finds  that  neither  the  evidence  of  record  nor  that  provided  by  the  applicant  substantiates an 
inequity or impropriety that would justify a change of discharge. 

ISSUE: 

Issue 1.  Applicant states that his discharge did not take into account the good things he did while in the 
service. The DRB took note of the applicant's duty performance as documented by his performance reports, 
letters of recommendation and other accomplishments.  In support of his contention, the applicant quoted a 
number of comments from Air Force officers and commanders which date to 1990 or earlier.  These 
comments and the applicant's positive service record were available during his Board of Inquiry, which 
found the applicant's service was best characterized as under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). 
They found the seriousness of the willful misconduct offset any positive aspects of the applicant's duty 
performance.  The Discharge Review Board concluded the discharge was appropriate for the reasons which 
were the basis for this case. 

Issue 2.  Applicant contends his discharge "was improper because it failed to acknowledge a legitimate but 
previously undiagnosed mental health condition, paraphilia scatologia (pg 61, Record of Proceedings), that 
contributed directly to the misconduct involved."  As indicated by the applicant's  citation to the transcript of 
his Board of Inquiry, that Board heard extensive testimony about the applicant's mental health.  The 
applicant's own expert witness at the BOI testified that his condition did not rise to the level of a legal 
defense for his actions.  At the DRB, the applicant testified that since his discharge, he has successfully 
completed treatment of his condition, and that the original diagnosis of his condition was never changed. 
The DRB found the applicant's  mental health condition was properly considered at the time of his discharge. 

Issue 3 describes the discharge proceedings as "improper and biased and pre-disposed to take UOTHC 
action, having been heavily influenced by"  local press coverage, the salacious nature of the misconduct, the 
strained relationship between the base and the community, and the fact that civilian prosecutors pursued a 
sentence to jail notwithstanding two recommendations for probation.  The DRB determined the applicant 
failed to meet his burden of proof regarding Issue 3.  The Board of Inquiry transcript contains numerous 
newspaper articles about the applicant's  arrest and conviction, as well as a letter from the Oneida County 
Probation Department noting that pre-sentence investigations recommended probation instead of jail. 
Finally, the applicant described the probation recommendations in his testimony before the DRB.  However, 
no evidence supported the contention that the newspaper coverage or the prosecutors'  decisions improperly 
impacted the discharge proceedings.  Media coverage of the applicant's conduct, while not evidence of the 

underlying offenses, may properly be considered as evidence of the impact of the applicant's  actions.  In 
conjunction with Issue 3, the applicant complains of four alleged procedural errors during his Board of 
Inquiry:  (I) the Legal Advisor's denial of his request to produce the applicant's  former commander as a live 
character witness; (2) the Legal Advisor's  interruption of the applicant's unsworn statement with the 
statement "see if we can wrap this up in about ten minutes;" (3) the Legal Advisor's  denial of a surrebuttal 
during closing arguments; and (4) the fact the BOI members deliberated for only 75 minutes.  The DRB was 
troubled by the Legal Advisor's  interruption of the applicant's  unsworn statement.  However, the DRB noted 
the applicant's unsworn statement was quite detailed and that the Legal Advisor subsequently offered the 
applicant additional time.  The remaining actions complained of by the applicant were within the discretion 
of the Legal Advisor and the BOI members, and do not provide grounds for upgrade or changing the basis of 
the discharge. 

Issue 4 presents the positive recommendations of two probation officers and one correctional facility 
educational coordinator as additional mitigating considerations.  The DRB was impressed with the 
applicant's  response to his arrest, conviction and discharge, and these recommendations are consistent with 
that response.  However, the police reports, media coverage and victim statements clearly show his crimes 
had a significant impact upon the victims and the community.  Issue 4 overlaps the contentions of Issue 1 
and Issue 5, which address the applicant's  behavior prior to and after his discharge.  The applicant's 
discharge and its basis appropriately characterize the applicant's  service. 

Issue 5 applies to the applicant's  post-service activities.  The DRB was pleased to see that the applicant was 
doing well and runs a successful business.  However, no inequity or impropriety in his discharge was 
suggested or found in the course of the hearing.  The Board concluded the misconduct of the applicant 
appropriately characterized his term of service. 

CONCLUSIONS:  The  Discharge  Review  Board  concludes  that  the  discharge  was  consistent  with  the 
procedural  and  substantive requirements  of  the  discharge regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion of  the 
discharge authority and that the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 

In view of the foregoing findings the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for 
upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. 

Attachment: 
Examiner's Brief 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 

ANDREWS AFB, MD 

(Former CAPT) (HGH CAPT) 

1.  MATTER UNDER REVIEW:  Appl rec'd  a UOTHC Disch fr USAF Griffis AFB, NY on 4 
Jan 91 UP AFR 36-2, Chapter 3, para 3-7d (Misconduct -  Serious or Recurring 
Misconduct Punishable by Military or Civialian Authorities).  Appeals for 
Honorable Discharge, and to Change the Reason and Authority for Discharge. 

2.  BACKGROUND: 

a. DOB: 14 Sep 61.  Enlmt Age: 21 8/12.  Disch Age: 29 3/12. Educ: HS DIPL. 
AFQT: N/A.  A-N/A,  E-N/A,  G-N/A,  M-N/A. PAFSC: K1525C -  Navigator-Bombardier. 
DAS: 4 Jun 85. 

b.  Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 15 May 83 -  22 Oct 83  (5 months 8 days)(Inactive). 

3.  SERVICE UNDER REVIEW: 

a.  Appt to 2Lt and Ordered to EAD  23 Oct 83. Svd: 07 Yrs 02 Mo 13 Das, all 

AMS . 

b.  Grade Status:  Capt -  4 Aug 87 
1Lt -  4 A u ~  85 

c.  Time Lost:  None. 

d.  Art 15's:  None. 

e.  Additional: None. 

f.  CM:  None. 

g.  Record of SV: 27 Apr 85 -  12 Dec 85  Griffis AFB  01  (Semiannual) 
13 Dec 85 -  12 Jun 86  Griffis AFB  01  (Semiannual) 
15 Nov 86 -  14 Nov 87  Griffis AFB  01  (Annual) 
15 Nov 87 -  31 Jul 88  Griffis AFB  01  (CRO) 
01 Aug 88 -  31 Jul 89  Griffis AFB  MS  (Annual) 
01 Aug 89 -  01 Feb 90  Griffis AFB  MS  (CR0)REF 

h.  Awards &  Decs:  AFOUA, CRM W/1 DEV, AFLSAR, AFTR. 

i.  Stmt of Sv:  TMS: (07) Yrs  (07) Mos  (21) Das 
TAMS:  (07) Yrs  (02) Mos  (13) Das 

4.  BASIS ADVANCED  FOR REVIEW:  Appln  (DD Fm 293) dtd 30 Dec 06. 

(Change Discharge to Honorable, and Change the Reason and Authority for 

Discharge) 

ISSUES ATTACHED TO BRIEF. 

ATCH 
1. Applicant's Issues. 
2. Officer Performance Reports. 
3. Special Flying Program Recommendation. 
4. Two Certificates of Recognition. 
5. News Article. 
6. Two Letters of Congratulations. 
7. Certificate of Recognition. 
8. Fifteen Letters of  Support. 
9. Published Magazine Articles. 
10. Book, llConquering Adversity." 
11. Audio CD, "Conquering Adversity." 

December 30,2005 

AF Review Board Agency 
SAFIMRBR 
550-C Street West, Suite 40 
Randolph AFB, TX 78 150-4742 

RE:  Request for Upgrade 

Review Board Members: 

Nearly 15 years after my UOTHC discharge, I respectiidly make application to have my 
discharge upgraded to honorable.  I do so for the following reasons: 

Issue 1:  The UOTHC discharge was inequitable given my sterling military record up to the 

time of discharge.  Specifically, my military record reflected: 

a.  Graduating top of my class at navigator training (Mather AFB, CA; class 84-14) 
and selection for the Air Training Command's  Commander's Trophy as the "most 
outstanding officer" of my class. 

b.  Distinguished Graduate honors fkom B-52 navigator training (Castle AFB, CA) 

c.  "Your record of accomplishment is impressive.  I appreciate your demonstration 

of pride and professionalism long associated with members 
Eighth."  Comments from a letter by Major General I 
Commander, 8'  Air Force (29 Nov  1988) on my noliiiiiitiiin bimHQ SAC as one 
of just three 8'  Air Force finalists for the prestigious and intensely competitive 
Institute of Navigation's Superior Achievement Award. 

of the 'Mighty 
i Vice 

----------------- 

d.  "Top Bomber" award in the 41 6h Airmanship Competition.  "Your final score, 

achieving 97 percent of the possible points, is a testimonial to your high 
standards, hard work and keen competitive edge . . . All of your activity was 
excellent but the combination of your 1 13 foot bomb and reliableOptip-qml- 
Defense Run were key factors in your large margin of victory," 
-------------- 
Colonel, USAF, Commander 416 BMW (10 Aug 1987) 

b9 

e.  Nominated for a test navigator position at Edwards AFB, California - one of the 
,..-.-.-.. 
most prestigious and competitive positions for a navigator.  "Captain: 
been a standout since entering the Air Force in 1983 ... his selection as one of 
bas 
I..-.-  .... 
three Eighth Air Force finalists identified him as one of the very best our 
say enough good things about this exceptional 
command, 
aviator," : 
Nov  1988) 

' Colonel, USAF, Commander, 416 BMW (25 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:, 

-!r.ft 

f.  Command wide recognition and by-name requested for my tactical expertise and 
exceptional combat crew training design and execution in 416"  BMW7s Weapon 
Systems Trainer.  Cited by the commander as key to earning the only "Excellent" 
rating of any B-52 Tactics Division in the 1989 Operational Readiness Inspection 
cycle. 

g.  Fast-track upgrade to radar navigator (1 5 months), fast-track upgrade to instructor 

radar navigator (1 5 months), top squadron crew honors (E-39, the only 
"Outstandii Performance" rating in the Inspector General's evaluation and many 
more aviation and leadership distinctions in over seven years of aviation service. 

h.  A career of Officer Evaluation Reports with the highest marks and the strongest 

endorsements.  Copies attached. 

i.  Documentation fiom senior officers and aviators who knew me personally and my 
work professionally and volunteered to provide written support of my exceptional 
service, personal character and professional contributions.  Their 
recommendations for an honorable discharge were edited out of the documents 
provided to the board members but the language that remained still reflects their 
strong, positive opinions of my service record: 

i.  "One  of my top officers, someone on whom I could depend for a top 
performance when the chips were down . . . He was a credit to the 4 16' 
BMW." ;----I ------- 

.-----------------. 

Lt. Colonel, USAF (1 6 Aug 1990) 

ii.  "I  observed his tenacious drive for training excellence, instructional 

prowess, and managerial competence.  The end result of his labors was, 
and is, a highly skilled bomber crew force . . . The bottom line is, the entire 
bomb wing benefited fiom training which exceeded anything I've been 
exposed tiin my thirteen years TI  SAC . . . if asked wobld I go into combat 
with him, my answer would be a resounding yes!" : ..-.. . ._. . . . . . . -. .: Jr., 

Lt. Colonel, USAF, Deputy Base Commander (1 5 Aug 1990) 

I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

iii.  "His military service, in my opinion, was exemplary." : 

Colonel, USAF (5 Sep 1990) 

-------------- 

C..-....-..... 

5 Lt. 

iv. 

---------- !tactical knowledge and ability to develop WST (B-52 
trainer) computer scenarios and programs to train B-52 crew members in 
tactics were known command wide . . . He was a critical link in developing 
WST programs to test SAC'S Rapid Response Bombing concept.  Captain 
-------- 
'- . . - . . . . - 
extensive knowledge and ability to make our crews the best in SAC." 
.................... 
.....-....-.......-. 
Operations, 416 BMW. (6 Aug  1990) 

! was a crucial member of our initial tactics cadre, using his 

i,  Jr., Lt. Colonel, USAF, Asst. Deputy Commander for 

. - - - - - - - - 
v.  "Not only was Captaifl-------- 

! and accomplished aviator, but he could 

have passed for a model officer.  Loyal, committed, aggressive, and 
impeccable bearing, he was just a pleasure to be around.  There was never 
any doubt he wanted to make the Air Force his career.  In fact, after 

talking with him following this unfortunate situation, I tbi.nk his intense 
desire to fly and be a career officer may have prevented him from seeking 
professional help for his psychological disorder.  I would like the Board of 
Inquiry to strongly consider bis superio;Job  pe&ooqrmg~ while on active 
duty in their final dischar  e decision."  ;- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -o 
USAF, Commander, 668  Bombardment Squadron (29 Aug 1990) 

: Lt. Colonel, 

P 

vi.  "This man is an exceptional Air Force~afficcr whoJm performed beyond 
i Captain, USAF, B-52 

any expectations.  He has no peers."  ! 
Instructor Pilot, Tactics (Aug 1990) 

C -------------- l 

vii.  "I have never met a more effective officer.  He is a bulwark of integrity 
and expertise are beyond reproach.  I 

and professionalism.  His loyalty -------- 
will proudly serve with Captaiq- - - - - - - - i in any capacity, under any 
circumstances.  He continues to represent the qualities I respect most in a 
peer.  I strongly urge that he be returned to flight status and unrestricted 
service in our Air Force.  : .-.-.. .. ..-.-.-.; Captain, USAF, Assistant Chief 
Tactics Branch (6 Aug 1 990) 

, , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

, - - - - - - - - 

viii.  "I  have not worked with many officers who have been as dedicated and 

; His loyalty and integrity to the Air Force are 
effective as Captain: 
above reproach.  I-Jig ieiiJiie record shows this to be true.  I strongly urge 
that he be reinstated to his fonner status and unrestricted service in the Air 
Captain, USAF, EWO Operations Study Off~cer 

ix.  "During the time I supervised Captain: 

; there was not a better radar 
navigator in the 416 BMW.  His performance wasdways flawless and the 
, - - - - - - - 
- 
senior staff recognized his outst&ding  ability. : % - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,  
:performance in all 
areas of his work has always been honorable." : ......-.-......-.-.--- 
Captain, USAF, StanIEval Instructor Aircraft Commander, Crew S-01 

.------- 

I - - - - - - - -  

m 

> 

Issue 2: 

The UOTHC discharge was improper because it failed to acknowledge a 
legitimate but previously undiagnosed mental health condition, paraphilia 
scatologia @g 6 1, Record of Proceedings), that contributed directly to the 
misconduct involved. 

a.  This health condition was being addressed through private, professional 

I - - - - - - - - -  

completed with Dr.: - -- 

intervention at the time of and subsequent to discharge (forty therapy sessions 
i at the time the board convened; pg 61, Record of 
:testified that, "the prognosis here is excellent," (pg 65, 

Proceedings).  Dr.; - - - - - - - - - ,  
Record of Proceedings) when referring to the likelihood that treatment would be 
successful in recovering from this condition and concludes, "I see no reason he 
couldn't continue," 
when asked if the Respondent could be retained in military 
; was admitted as an expert witness in psychology and child 
service.  Dr.; 
psychology GdpiGented powerful testimony to the medical condition underlying 
the Respondent's  actions. 

.--------- 

b.  Had the board advocated continued medical intervention and monitoring at the 

time, it is reasonable to assume that my military service could have continued in a 
productive capacity.  This contention of my continued potential value is supported 
by an exceptional post-service history of nearly 15 years (see Item #5). 

c.  Despite my discharge, I continued professional care with Dr.;.  . . . . . . .! for nearly 
two years on my own accord to ensure a complete recovery - evidence of which 
is supported by my stellar post-service record (see Item #5). 

I - - - - - - - - -  

d.  The health condition I battled is rooted in childhood traumas and is unmoved by 

high position or education, as evidenced by other professionals whose misconduct 
approximated my own and became public (for example, an appellate court judge 
in New York and a president of American University in Washington, DCi---------- 
------------- 
: -. . . . -. . . . - 9 

: in 1990).  It is a medical condition, diagnosable, treatable and real. 

- - - - - - - - - - I  

Issue 3:  The discharge proceedings were improper and biased and pre-disposed to take 

UOTHC action, having been heavily influenced by negative, local press coverage 
at the time, the non-violent but salacious nature of the actions, deference to 
civilian prosecutors that blatantly disregarded two pre-sentencing investigations 
that recommended probation only, and an overall atmosphere of strained 
relationship between that military community and local civilian community over 
the base's  assumed nuclear arsenal.  This made it impossible for me to have my 
case heard objectively on the totality of its merits and considerations of its 
complexities, The record reflects this bias in numerous instances: 

a.  The ruling by Legal Advisor, Lt. Colonel i - - - - - - - - - - ;_tadmy the defense 

, - - - - - - - - - - 7  

request for the in-person appearance of Lt. colonel!, - - - - - - - -. i unjustly 
handicapped the Respondent's ability to counter the two live witnesses 
presented by the government (pg 34, Record of Proceedings). 
,  - - - - - - - - . 
Specifically, since the entirety of the government's witness (Mrs. 
I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 testimony was already admitted in evidence into the record via 
her written statement, the purpose of her live testimony was only to 
produce a visual image and sound bite with strong negative impressions of 
the Respondent and the Respondent's  character for the board members. 
The government has a right to present a witness for this impact but a 
similar protection is afforded the Respondent in order to counter that 
impact with its own live witness appearance to offer the bo-gcj ggontrary 
image as it deliberated.  The importance of Lt. Colonel i ------------ 
appearance was critical to the Respondent's case specifically because he 
had been and was the Respondent's commander at the time of and 
immediately afier the misconduct aired.  His impressions of the 
Respondent's character, professionalism and conduct - as expressed eye- 
to-eye with the convening board - would have offered a fair and equitable 
live witness.  The Legal Advisor's ruling to 
balance to the govement's 
: appearance - or the Legal Advisor's 
deny Lt. Coloneli - - - - - - - - - - - a  
subseluent overruling of the Respondent's Council's objection to Mrs. 
---- 
------- 
:............ ' 
government. Either both parties should have been instructed to rely on the 
written evidence already in the record or both parties should have been 

!appearance - created an inequitable advantage for the 

-----------. 

given a live witness appearance of the person best able to support their 
case. 

b.  Evidence of this pre-disposition appears most strikingly in the Legal 

Advisor's interruption of my (Respondent's) statement @g 86, Record of 
3  See if we can wrap 
Proceedings).  His interruption of, "Captain!:::::::- 
this up in about ten minutes." destroyed my train of thought, 
communicated to me that what I had to say was not important, signaled to 
the other board members a disinterest in my defense, and totally disrupted 
the most important statement of my professional life.  I was left in disarray 
by the interruption and had to try to convey my strong desire to seek 
treatment but remain an officer in an ad hoc manner now governed by the 
clock - a point that was clearly evident shortly afterward when I closed 
with "I'm  sorry, that's probably ten minutes."  (pg 87, Record of 
Proceedings). 

i.  The Legal Advisor's  subsequent statement that I could continue if I 
had more to say belied the fact that I was already devastated by the 
interruption and ten minute constraint.  In fact, the comment 
seemed disingenuous to me given the apparent urgency to close the 
hearing and render a verdict,  Still, I tried to offer a few minutes of 
the testimony I had originally wanted to provide in one coherent 
presentation but it was obvious by then the damage to my 
credibility had been inflicted by the Legal Advisor's interruption. 
My testimony was not excessively long or repetitive and I should 
have been permitted to offer my statement uninterrupted. 

ii.  When an officer's career is on the line, particularly one with a 

stellar military record and serious, complex mitigating issues, the 
board should be able to sustain interest and open-minded 
consideration of the defense's position for what had not even 
exceeded one hour.  My conclusion was that this board already had 
a verdict and that impaired my defense. 

c.  The Legal Advisor's denial of a final rebuttal by Respondent's council to 
the misleading and prejudicial statements by the Recorder left the board 
with inaccurate information.  The failure of Respondent's council to object 
to Recorder's closing arguments was a reflection of their reasonable belief 
that they would be granted a brief response.  There was no reasonable 
justification for the Legal Advisor to deny the request for a brief rebuttal - 
again, a fair and impartial proceeding would welcome that input. 

d.  The board deliberated for no more than one hour, reconvening 75 minutes 

after closing its doors for deliberation.  It is unlikely that all members 
could have read the more than one hundred pages of written material 
submitted into evidence, reviewed the testimony given, and discussed the 
facts and circumstances of the case in that amount of time.  The brevity of 
deliberation supports a claim that the Respondent's right to a "fair and 
impartial hearing''  was not fully realized. 

Issue 4: 

Additional mitigating considerations at the time of these proceedings: 

--......-. 

b

e

a.  "I  hope to put Mr. ! 

iituation into perspective . . . several things 
should be noted.  ~i&%&iince Investigations in both Oneida and Madison 
Counties recommnded probation onl?  . . . Subject is well established in 
the community, being married and hav@gare,sponsible career.  His crime, 
although annoying, -------- 
is not violent.  Mr.: I- - - - - - - -I :has no prior criminal or 
legal history.  Mr.: -------- : , has an excellent attitude and has in no way tried 
to justifjl his behavior, but accepts the negatives and has made efforts to 
correct his life.  Subject has sought and continues counseling, and has 
made excellent progress.  The prosecutors in this case, however, felt 
contrary to the above and fought hard for a jail sentence.  Fortunately, 
however, a Conditional Release Program is in existence in both Oneida 
and Madison Counties.  Thus, offering people of Mr. : , - - - -  - - - - . !caliber an 
 supervision."  Excerpt &om letter dated 
opportunity f ~ y - g ? ~ ~ ~ . t y ~  
5 Sep 1990 b$- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Probation Officer, Oneida County. 
b.  "Mr.: - - -----:has a sickness that is now being treated and a sentence of 

-......- 

incarceration will serve no useful purpose.  Mr.: -------- :needs 
treatment 

to continue 
- -  his illness . . . a sentence of incarceration is not appropriate. 
b d  society would benefit more if he were treated 

, - - - - - - for 
1 ----- --. 

, - - - - - - - - 
. 

I - - - - - - - - - -  

------------------ 

C.  "As a trustee, Captain: m - - - - - - - a   : tan9i.H~-@proved the quality of our 

therapeutically rather than punitively."  Excerpt fiom probation report 
filed by!- - - - - - - - - - - - -_ - -_j Senior Probation Officer, Oneida County. 

. - - - - - - . 
! volunteered as a reading tutor for 
educational program . . . Captain i 
an adult low level reader.  His initiatii;  and enthusiasm in this capacity 
left our staff impressed.  His presence here made a difference and that is 
worthy of your attention. What he did was wrong; but what he has 
demonstrated to me suggests a responsible man who has overcome 

obstacles most -----------------. 
his potential." i 
Correctiond Fzlli6: --------- 

of us cannot imagine.  Were it up to me, I would not waste 

' Education Coordinator, Oneida County 

Issue 5: 

My post-service history for nearly fifteen years validates a complete recovery 
fiom the health condition I suffered from at the time of discharge and rises to such 
a significant level of achievement and charity, that while not itself justification for 
upgrade, provides at least evidence that my defense and contention at the time of 
discharge -that  I be allowed to continue treatment for my health condition while 
actively serving in a productive military capacity - was substantive, reasonable 
and with merit.  Specifically: 

a 

Summary of post-service achievement: 

i. 

After his mother was killed eight years ago, I devoted my life to 
raising my son, now age 17, into a young man she would be proud 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

v. 

vi. 

I - - - - - - -  

of.  Today; -----  ! is a high honor roll high school junior, two sport 
varsity athlete, first chair jazz saxophone and community/church 
volunteer whose future is bright and limitless. 

I established and endowed ($10,000 initial contribution) a student 
scholarship at Upstate Medical University in my wife's  name. 
Now, each year, a cytotechnology student receives an education 
grant from the Cynthia Anne Novak Memorial Scholarship Fund 
which Ryan and I usually present. 

I completed a master's degree in business management (3.83 
GPA). 

Professional employment and advancement to the highest levels of 
human resources management at an upstate New York 
manufacturer and Cornell University.  I am a recognized and 
respected human resources authority. 

Author of multiple magazine articles on military history and 
heroism in publications that include Retired OfJicer Magazine, 
VFW Magazine, Military Llfe, and Smithsonian 's Air & Space; 
reflecting the high regard, pride and positive connection I feel for 
military service (both my own and others).  A list of magazine 
articles and publication dates is provided. 

In 2001, I left Cornell University to start my own business and be 
more available for my son after his mother was killed by a driver 
high on drugs. The Summit Team (www.Summit-teamecorn) 
focuses on leadership development and executive coaching.  The 
business is now nearly five years old, thriving and a pillar in my 
small community where I support many local charities.  For 
example, last fall I provided pre-season leadership training to the 
varsity boy's  soccer team who went on to become NY State 
champions and honored me for my work with them. 

a 

vii.  Author of the book, Conquerinn Adversity:  Six Strategies to Move 

You and Your Team Throub T o u h  Times (cornerstone 
Leadership Institute, Dallas, TX; 2004), a copy of which is 
enclosed.  With more than 50,000 copies in print and with 
hundreds of corporations, govement offices, schools and 
individuals as clients, this book has been an inspiration to people 
everywhere.  Based on the real-world insights of moving forward 
with purpose and passion in the wake of my pregnant wife's death 
in 1998 (a man high on drugs ran a stop sign and killed her and our 
unborn baby), this book reflects my belief that there is a hero 
inside each of us that can lift us above life's most serious 
challenges. 

After hurricane Katrina, I donated 300 of my books to Biloxi, MS 
- one for every police officer and firefighter in Biloxi - to help 
them recover emotionally. 
------------ 
fmily  (F- -- ---  -. --- 
My book has been donated to the 1 
--------- 
- - - - - - - - - - - I   ....-.-.-.-...._ ; 
the mother of i- - - - - - - -. 
l......-.-.-.-.-. 
:fie' 
head coach of the Colts, president of MADD in Pennsylvania and 
many others who have &owledged 
message.  I donated 50 books to attendees of a Victim's of 
Violence service which I keynoted (gratis) and earned a standing 
ovation for.  My work has touched thousands of lives. 

: who was lost in Aruba), : 

and benefited frbm its 

I invite the review board to read just pages 9-1 4 of my book to 
glimpse the depth of my post-service journey. 

viii. 

I am now a professional motivational speaker who has brought the 
Conauering Adversity message to thousands of people both 
nationally and internationally, including American military 
families and students stationed at SHAPE, Belgium, students and 
staff at high schools, at-risk youth and counselors and dozens of 
business professionals and non-profit leaders. 

I frequently provide gratis presentations to church groups, youth 
groups and non-profit organizations that seek out my positive, 
empowering message.  For example, last August, I presented gratis 
to over 300 community action leaders at a conference honoring 
people who work with the disadvantaged. 

ix. 

A post-service history that is completely free of any legal missteps 
or recidivism.  I have been a consistent financial supporter of law 
enforcement efforts and organizations. 

I am acutely aware that requests for upgrade are overwhelmingly denied and that consideration 
for such action must be supported by the evidence.  I believe I have met my burden of proof for 
the reasons outlined above - arguments that provide a foundation for the board to find that cause 
exists to reconsider the f d  findings.  I humbly request that the board discuss the merits of my 
case in their totality and find as I do, that the best interests of the Air Force are served by 
rendering an honorable discharge to reflect the documented excellence given to our country in 
performance of my Cold War duties, my accountability in accepting responsibility and remorse 
for a complex problem rooted in childhood traumas that has been professionally and fully 
treated, and supported by recognition of nearly 15 years of truly exemplary post-service history. 

'. 

HLADQuARTERS 4t6TH BOMBARDMENT WING ( M I  (SAC) 
GR~FFISS AIR  FORCE  IASC.  NEW YORK  i s ~ t - s o w  

c~srltv?q. 

3 

2 6  APR 1990 

,,.,,,,  N o t i f i c a t i o n   o f   A c t i o n   Under  AFR  36-2 

--------------------------------------------------. 

Captain : - - - - - - - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - -  

'  416  BMW 
1, 

1.  I am 
3-7d 

i n i t i a t i n g  a c t i o n   a g a i n s t   you  under  AFR  36-2,  chapter  3,  paragraph 

2,  .I  am 
punishable  b y  m i l i t a r y  o r   c i v l l l a n  a u t h o r i t i e s ,   as  evidenced  b y  t h e   f o l l o w i n g :  

t a k i n g   t h i s   a c t i o n   because  of  your  s e r l o u s   and  r e c u r r i n g   misconduct 

a. 

You  d i d ,  

i n  and  around  Rome,  New  York,  on  d f v e r s   occasions  d u r i n g   t h e  

p e r i o d   from  on  .or  about  1 January  1986  t o   on  o r   about  23  January  1990, 
wrongful 1 y  and  d i s h o n o r a b l y   impersonate  t e l  eph'one  company  employees  and 
p o l i c e  o f f i c i a l s   o f  t h e   Governments  of  t h e   State  of  New  York  and  t h e   V i l l a g e  
of  Cl i n t o n ,   New  Yark,  b y  o r a l l y   i d e n t i f y i n g   y o u r s e l  f  as  such  and  t h e r e a f t e r  
.asserting  t h e i r   a u t h o r i t y   d u r i n g   telephone  conversations  w i t h  women  l i v i n g  i n  
and.around  Rome,  New  York, 
women  t e l  ephoned. 

i n  o r d e r   t o   e l i c i t   personal  i n f o r m a t i o n   from  the 

b. 

You  d i d ,   i n  and  around  Rome,  New  York,  on  d i v e r s   occasions  during  t h e  

p e r i o d   from  on  o r   about  1 January  1986  t o   on  o r   about  23  January  1990, 
wrongfully  and  d i s h o n o r a b l y   harass  women  1 i v i n g   i n  and  around  Rome,  New  York, 
b y  making  unsol l c i t e d   and  unwanted  telephone  c a l l s   t o  them  as  a  means  o f  
communicating  graphic,  u n s e t t l i n g  and  indecent  i n f o r m a t i o n   d e s c r i b i n g   t h e  
kidnapping,  sexual  t o r t u r f n g   and/or  r a p i n g   o f  women. 

c.  You  d i d ,   i n  and  around  Rome,  New  York,  on  di'vers  occasions  from  on  o r  

about  1 January  1986  t o   on  o r   about  23  January  1990,  w r o n g f u l l y   and 
dishonorably  communicate  b y  telephone  t o   women  1 i v i n g   i n  and  around  Rome,  New 
~ o r k ,  t h r e a t s ,  t h a t   you  woul'd  t o r t u r e ,   rape,  and/or  k i l l  them  o r   t h e f r   f a m i l y  
members. 

Attached  a r e   copies  o f  documentary  evidence  t o   support  t h i s   a c t i o n .   The  worst 
p o s s i b l e   discharge  t h a t   may  be  approved  f o r   t h e   reasons  c i t e d   i s  an  under 
o t h e r   than  honorable  c o n d i t i o n s   discharge. 

3: 
Famil i a r i z e  y o u r s e l f   w i t h   AFR  36-2,  p a r t i c u l a r l y   paragraph  4-10,  which 
o u t l i n e s   t h e   r i g h t s   a f f o r d e d   you  i n  t h i s   a c t i o n ,   and  paragraph  4-13,  which 
explains  t h e   a c t i o n   t h e   m a j o r   conunander ...................... 
may  t a k e   on  r e c e i p t   o f  your  r e p l y  t o  
t h i s  correspondence.  Contact  Captain i .....................  :, Area  Defense  Counsel , 

P e a c e ,

 . . . i s   o u r   P r o f e s s i o n  

hlo7E;  NOT 0 f f k ~ ~ 0  

- .  

Depot  1,  2nd  f l o o r ,   G r i f f i s s   AFB,  NY  13441-5000,  330-3071, 
procedures  involved  and  your  r i g h t s  
counsel , contact  Captain 1 
AFB,  NY  13441-5000,  330-3662, 
options. 

--------- and  options. 

:  Chlef,  CBPO,  416  MSSQ/MSP,  G r i f f i s s  

f o r   counseling  regarding  your  r i g h t s   and 

I f  you  d e c l i n e   l e g a l  

t o   discuss  the 

4.  Within  15  calendar  days  a f t e r  you  r e c e i v e   t h i s   correspondence,  you  may: 

a.  If e l  i g i b l e  t o   r e t i r e ,   a p p l y   f o r   v o l u n t a r y   r e t i r e m e n t   t o   be  e f f e c t i v e  

I f  l e s s   t h a n   15  calendar  days  between  t h e  

on  t h e   f i r s t   day  o f  t h e   month  fmmediate1.y  f o l l o w i n g   n o t i f i c a t i o n   o f  approval 
b y  t h e   Secretary  o f   t h e   A i r   Force. 
date  you  a r e   n o t i f i e d  and  t h e   f i r s t   day  o f  t h e   month  f o l l o w i n g   n o t i f i c a t i o n ,  
t h e   e f f e c t i v e   date  o f  your  r e t i r e m e n t   will  be  t h e   f i r s t   day  o f  t h e   second 
month  a f t e r   notification.  I f  you  have  20  o r  more  years  o f   a c t i v e   m i l i t a r y  
s e r v i c e   but  you  do  not  have  t h e   r e q u f r e d  minimum  10  years  o f  a c t f v e  
commissioned  s e r v i c e   t o   q u a l i f y   f o r   r e t i r e m e n t   i n  o f f i c e r   s t a t u s ,   you  may 
apply  f o r   separation  under  t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   of  AFR  36-12, 
r u l e  1,  t o  
e n l i s t   f o r  t h e   purpose  o f   r e t f r e m e n t   i n  the  e n l i s t e d   grade  I n   l i e u  of  f u r t h e r  
a c t i o n   under  AFR  36-2. 

tab1 e  2-7, 

t a b l e   2-7, 

If i n e l i g i b l e  t o   r e t i r e ,   tender  your  r e s i g n a t i o n   according  t o  AFR 

b. 
r u l e   1,  t o  be  e f f e c t i v e   w i t h i n   10  calendar  days  f o l l o w i n g  
36-12, 
n o t t f i c a t i o n   o f  acceptance  by  t h e   Secretary o f  t h e   A i r   Force.  By  t e n d e r i n g  
your  resignation  you  w i
you  are  otherwlse  q u a l i f i e d   t o   r e c e i v e   such  pay. 
r e s i g n a t i o n ,   i t  w i
receive  a  general  (under  honorable  c o n d j t i o n s )   d l  scharge,  unl ess  t h e   Secretary 
o f  t h e   A j r   Force  determines  t h a t   you  w i

l   be  w i t h   t h e   understanding  t h a t ,   i f  accepted,  you  will 

l   be  d i s q u a l i f i e d   f o r   separation  o r   severance  pay  i f  

l   be  honorab'ly  dlscharged. 

I f  you  tender  y o u r  

l

l

l

c.  Submit  any  w r i t t e n ,  statement  o r   o t h e r   documentary  evidence  t h a t   you 

f e e l   'should  be  consfdered  i n  e v a l u a t i n g   y o u r   case.  If you  are  unable  t o  
prepare  your  statements  o r   documentary  evidence  w i t h i n  'the  t i m e   s p e c i f i e d  
above,  you  may  request  more  t i m e   as  o u t l i n e d   i n  AFR  36-2,  paragraph  4-12. 
5.  W i t h i n   15  calendar  days  a f t e r   you  r e c e i v e   t h i s   1 e t t e r  , send  i t  without 
attachments,  by  indorsement  d l r e c t l y   t o   HQ  SAC/DPAAB,  O f f u t t   AFB,  NE 
68113-5001,  w i t h   i n f o r m a t i o n  copies  t o   416  MSSQ/MSPqS,  416  BMW/JA,  416  BMWICC, 
G r i f f i s s   AFB,  NY  134441-5000,  and  HQ  8  AF/DPA,  Barksdale  AFB,  LA  71110. 
Include  i n  your  Indorsement : 

a, 

A  statement  t h a t   you  (have)  (have  n o t ) :  

(1)  Applied  f o r   v o l u a t a r y   r e t i r e m e n t ,   o r  

( 2 )   Tendered  your  .resl gnation. 

I f  you  a p p l y   f o r   v o l u n t a r y   r e t i r e m e n t   o r   tender  y o u r   resignation,  a t t a c h  a 
copy  o f  your  a p p l l c a t l o n   t o   t h i s   indorsement, 

b.  A  statement  t h a t   you  (do)  (do  n o t )   d e s i r e   t o   comment, 

I f  you  d e s i r e  
t o   comment,  you  may  a t t a c h   any  statements  o r   documentary  evidence  you  want  t o  
I f  you  have  requested  more  t i m e   as  o u t l i n e d   i n  paragraph  4c  o f  t h l s  
submit. 
l e t t e r ,   a t t a c h   a  copy  o f  your  request. 

. 

c.  A  s t a t e m e n t   t h a t   you  have  bee.n  counseled  by  C a p t a i n  : 
Area  Defense  Counsel. 
that  you  have  been  counseled  b y   C a p t a i n  : ------  ------  ---m' 
you  f u l l y   understand  y o u r   r i g h t s  and  o p i l o n s   I n  thls  a c t i o n .  

I f  y o u   d e c l i n e   l e ~ a l  

----------------- 

counsel,  so  s t a t ' ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ l

i 
i
:  Chief,  CBPO,  and  t h a t  

i d d l ~ i ~ i ~ ~  

d .   You  m a y   r e q u e s t   t o  be  placed  on  excess  l e a v e   p r o v i d e d   p r o c e s s i n g   o f  
AFR  35-9  p r o v i d e s  

t h i s   s e p a r a t i o n   a c t i o n   no  l o n g e r   r e q u i r e s   y o u r   presence. 
guidance  on  excess  leave. 

6.  W i t h i n   24  hours  a f t e r   you  r e c e i v e   t h i s   correspondence,  s i g n   and  d a t e   two 
c o p i e s   o f  t h e   l e t t e r   o f  acknowledgment. 
Send  one  c o p y   t o   416  MSSQ/MSPQS, 
G r i f f i s s   AFB,  NY  13441-5000  and  one  copy  t o   HQ  SAC/DPAAB,  O f f u t t   AFB,  NE 
68113-5001. 

,.....-.-......-.-.-------------------- 

A c t i o n   r e q u i r e d   by  DOD  5200.2-R/AFR 

a---------- 

205-32,  c h a p t e r   8 ,   i s  complete. 

7. 

2. 
3. 

4. 
5. 
6. 

V i c t i m s i   Statements 
N.Y.  S t a t e   Pol i c e   I n v e s t i g a t i o n  
Report,  New  H a r t f o r d   Case 
No.  10288 
AFR  36-2 t.-.'/L) 
AFR  36-12  wfl 
L e t t e r   of  Acknowl edgrnent  ( Z c y s )  (1/4)