RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01343
		INDEX NUMBER:  136.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Officer Grade Determination (OGD), dated 25 February 1997, be changed to reflect that he served satisfactorily in the higher grade of lieutenant colonel.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the period he was going through the OGD, he provided very little in his defense.  Until now, he has not been emotionally, psychologically, or rationally prepared to express his objections to his perceptions of possible injustice.  He has been on medication for quite some time.

He accepted the Article 15 without question.  He was under tremendous duress and depression brought about by an imminent divorce and the complete loss of his family.  His highest priority was to save his marriage.  All else seemed insignificant, even to protect and attempt to defend himself in the face of military judgments.

He was the senior officer in the V-22 joint service program office, where the atmosphere was very hostile to the Air Force for political reasons, which contributed to his despair.  He requested support from both the program office and the Air Force after discovering deficiencies in design and testing, but he was totally ignored.  He was hurt professionally and personally.

He felt abandoned and emotionally destroyed by the only entities he ever cared about.  These two events led to such severe depression that he began to consume more alcohol.  His doctors determined he was near suicidal and recommended anti-depressant medication.  He admitted himself to the Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Center (SARC) at Andrews Air Force Base, and was a patient at the time he officially signed the Article 15.  No legal counsel was present or available.  He does not dispute the punishment; however, he believes there were mitigating circumstances for his uncharacteristic behavior.

He was never informed of an OGD until several days after he requested retirement (September 1996).  He was under extreme duress, depression and hopelessness that resulted in actions leading to the Article 15.  As additional evidence, he offers a summary of his background for the Board’s consideration.  He believes he earned and deserves the rank of lieutenant colonel based on 26 years of service and not on a moment in his life that clearly is not representative of the dedication, devotion, and sacrifice he willingly made and would make again to his country.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered on active duty with the Air Force on 2 January 1982.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank of 1 December 1993.  He voluntarily retired by reason of “Sufficient Service for Retirement,” effective 1 May 1997.  He had served 15 years, 3 months and 29 days on active duty.  He had 9 years, 3 months and 16 days of total prior active service, for a total of 24 years, 7 months and 15 days of active service for retirement.

On 15 November 1995, the applicant’s commander initiated Article 15 proceedings against him for dereliction of duties; making a false official statement; and for conduct unbecoming an officer.  Between 1 January 1995 and 11 October 1995, the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties as the Air Force Program Manager for the joint aircraft procurement program.  Specifically, he failed to attend team meetings on a regular basis, failed to stay until meetings were completed, and failed to ensure adequate Air Force representation in his absence.  During this same period, he made inappropriate comments in the workplace concerning his personal life and sexual encounters.  Specifically, while still married, he reported carrying on a relationship with a female who had been previously employed in the office and told co-workers of his sexual exploits with her.  Finally, after his subordinates reported his conduct, an officer was appointed by command to conduct an inquiry.  When the applicant was questioned by that officer about whether he was undergoing psychiatric care or psychological counseling (as he had told his subordinates) and about whether he had discussed his personal life in the workplace, the applicant denied all of the allegations.  He was under psychiatric care, was receiving psychological counseling, and had, as testimony disclosed, talked about his personal life and sexual exploits.  The evidence supporting the Article 15 action is contained in the Inspector General report of Inquiry (ROI), dated 12 October 1995.

The applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15 and was found guilty of the offenses charged.  Punishment consisted of forfeiture of $400 per month for 2 months and a reprimand.  The Article 15 was placed in his unfavorable information file (UIF) and on 13 February 1996, the ASC/CC decided to place the Article 15 in both the HQ USAF and Officer Command Selection Records.

On 4 September 1996, the applicant applied for retirement to be effective 1 October 1996.  On 17 September 1996, his commander notified him that he was initiating an OGD because he had been punished pursuant to Article 15 within two years of retirement.  The applicant submitted a response to the action on 17 September 1996.

On 30 September 1996, the ASC/CC recommended that the applicant be permitted to retire in the grade of major.  

On 21 October 1996, the applicant’s counsel submitted additional matters.  The Major Command Judge Advocate General reviewed the OGD file on 8 and 25 October 1996 and found it legally sufficient.  They recommended that AFMC/CV forward the file with a recommendation that the applicant be retired as a major.  On 25 November 1996, AFMC/CV recommended he be retired in the grade of major, the highest grade satisfactorily held.

The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Board considered the case on 14 February 1997.  The Board found his misconduct had an extremely detrimental impact on the small unit he was charged with leading and adversely impacted on the Air Force as a whole.  Given the short period of time in grade, the lengthy period of misconduct, and the severe impact of that misconduct, the Board found that he had failed to serve satisfactorily as a lieutenant colonel and unanimously agreed that he should be retired in the grade of major.

On 25 February 1997, the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency, acting in behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force, determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the higher grade of lieutenant colonel and directed that he be retired in the grade of major.  The applicant was subsequently retired in the grade of major, effective 1 May 1997.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRR determined that the procedures were followed in accordance with policy concerning the OGD process.  All proper coordination and recommendations were made from the Unit/CC, MAJCOM/JA, and MAJCOM/CV.  The applicant was officially notified and was given the opportunity to submit documentation on his behalf.  AFPC/DPPRR deferred to the decision of SAFPC, stating that only that office has the authority to make OGD determinations.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated that he did not know what grade determination meant until several days after he requested retirement.  He was never informed or counseled about the consequences of an Article 15 possibly leading to a grade determination until he called for the status of his retirement application.  Upon learning of the two-year provisional period that the grade determination would be in effect, he attempted to retract his retirement application.  He would have been only 6 months away from the two-year period when the board made its decision regarding grade determination.  He earned an Air Force Achievement Medal for a special project during the period after the Article 15 and his actual retirement.  He was in the Andrews Air Force Base Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Center when he signed the Article 15.

He was under extreme duress and depression and felt hopeless, which resulted in actions leading to the Article 15.  He was under heavy medication for depression.  He also discovered he suffered from alcoholism, which led him down a path of destruction.  His doctor and a psychiatrist determined he was near suicidal because of two traumatic incidents that occurred during the time of the Article 15 charges.  These incidents led to medication and excessive alcohol consumption.

The applicant offers a synopsis of legal considerations prepared by his attorney, which gives a summary of his background.  He states the OGD is hundreds of times greater than the original Article 15 punishment.

It took him 26 years to work himself from airman to lieutenant colonel.  The very short period of his career and life, resulting in an Article 15, does not represent the loyalty and sacrifices he willingly gave to the Air Force.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant stated that, while alcoholism is a recognized disease, it is not accepted as a mitigating disorder for any misconduct an individual might commit.  The grade determination was entirely appropriate to the circumstances and the egregiousness of his actions warranted retirement in the lower grade.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated he does not dispute the results of the Article 15.  His appeal relates to the treatment and lack of counseling and guidance he received during and due to the Article 15, prior to his retirement, during his retirement request, and upon his retirement.  He would have waited for the probationary two-year period to expire had he been informed about it.  

He does not consider his extreme duress, depression, and hopelessness excuses for the Article 15 violations, but more as an explanation for his uncharacteristic behavior.  While he may not agree with some of the Article 15 charges and feels he should have challenged some of them, he still strongly feels he should be personally accountable to the Air Force in every regard.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the available evidence of record.  Moreover, the Board was not persuaded that the applicant’s illness or any other stressors in his life excuse his actions.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence provided, it is our opinion that the Article 15 was within legal limits, appropriate to the offenses, and does not appear unjust or disproportionate.  In the absence of persuasive evidence showing that the imposing commanders abused their discretionary authority, that his substantial rights were violated during the processing of the Article 15 punishment, or that the punishment exceeded the maximum authorized by the UCMJ, we find no basis to disturb the existing record.  Since he received the Article 15 within two years of his retirement, a grade determination was required. 

4.  Consequently, with respect to the Officer Grade Determination (OGD), after a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we conclude that there are no grounds to change the finding that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  Given the nature of the offenses of which he was found guilty while serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel, the Board is not persuaded that the findings of the OGD constitute an injustice, or that the process followed was incorrect.  Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

5.  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 issue 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 probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 21 Aug 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Aug 2001.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Sep 2001.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Oct 2001.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 2001.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Nov 2001.

                                   	
                                   Panel Chair