RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:	BC-2015-05255 COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 16 May 10 through 15 May 10 [sic] be removed from her records.

She receive a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) decoration appropriate for her rank.

Her Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 10 Nov 10 and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be removed from her records.

All references related to her removal as Superintendent, Legal Office be removed from her records.

She be promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) in accordance with her line number during the 10E9 promotion cycle.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In a 10-page legal brief, the applicant, through counsel, makes the following contentions:

A misguided and poorly executed Command Directed Investigation (CDI) resulted in a witch-hunt that derailed her promotion to the grade of CMSgt. The Investigating Officer (IO) did not understand her role as an IO and conducted an investigation that was designed to find her guilty of the allegations. The IO only interviewed one witness, a disgruntled and abusive husband, and thus arrived at an unsupportable conclusion.

Her superiors ignored her long record of outstanding service and professionalism to label her a homosexual and ruin her career.

The letter submitted by the former Air Force District of Washington (AFDW) commander will help the Board to understand the magnitude of the wrong done to her.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

The IO’s failure to conduct a proper investigation and her superiors’ failures to require substantive facts before making decisions render all actions taken against her improper and unjust.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 18 Sep 90.
On 16 Sep 10, the husband of a female civilian complained to his commander that the applicant was having an inappropriate relationship with his wife and provided paper copies of emails and online messages to support his allegations. On the same day, the applicant’s former commander issued a Military Protective Order, prohibiting the applicant from having any contact with the female civilian employee.

On 29 Sep 10, the Third Air Force commander (3 AF/CC) initiated a fact-finding inquiry into the alleged homosexual conduct of the applicant and appointed an IO.

On 7 Oct 10, the IO interviewed the complainant (husband), who provided printed electronic communications between the applicant and the civilian employee (wife).

On 8 Oct 10, the applicant’s Area Defense Counsel (ADC) indicated the applicant declined to make a statement for the inquiry. The IO did not interview any witnesses other than the husband of the civilian employee.

On 26 Oct 10, the 3 AF/CC notified the applicant that he was recommending she be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, for homosexual conduct.

On 8 Nov 10, the applicant was issued a LOR. The reason for the LOR states that “on 12 Oct 10, an inquiry revealed that she engaged in an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of an active duty Air Force service member. Specifically, for several months leading up to 16 Sep 10, the applicant wrongfully engaged in an intimate relationship of a sexual nature with this individual while both the applicant and the other person were married. Your misconduct had a direct detrimental effect on good order and discipline.”

On 10 Nov 10, the applicant provided a rebuttal statement; however, her supervisor considered her response and decided to maintain the LOR and established an UIF.

On 18 Nov 10, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of discharge.

On 7 Jan 11, the applicant was notified she was being removed from her duties as Superintendent, Law Office.

The applicant was removed from the promotion list to the grade of CMSgt. However, her records do not include any documentation indicating when she was removed, by whom she was removed, or why.

On 11 Jun 11, the applicant was issued a referral EPR for the period 16 May 10 through 15 May 11.

On 30 Sep 16, the applicant retired and was credited with 26 years and 13 days of total active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs), which are included at Exhibits C through G.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/JA recommends granting the applicant’s requests, indicating an injustice occurred and accordingly the applicant is due relief. The main issues facing the Board are the legal sufficiency of the LOR, specifically, the legality of the conclusion that the applicant engaged in misconduct, and whether an injustice occurred. If the finding of misconduct, which was memorialized in the LOR, had not been made by the applicant’s supervisor, it is likely that the other actions (UIF, referral EPR, withdrawal of supervisory responsibilities, declination to give a decoration, and removal from the promotion list) would also not have occurred. Those actions are based on the alleged misconduct that is documented in the LOR. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether there was an error or injustice related to the LOR from which the other actions flow.

Because the homosexual fact-finding inquiry serves as the source of information relied upon for the LOR, it is necessary to evaluate the inquiry-the basis for it, the evidence collected and considered, the degree of analysis, and the extent of the conclusions-to see whether it supports a finding by a preponderance of the evidence all the elements of the alleged offense in the LOR.

Through counsel, the applicant takes issue with the fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct ordered by the 3rd AF/CC and conducted by the IO. Specifically, counsel characterizes it as “a misguided and poorly executed CDI that resulted in a witch hunt that derailed the applicant’s promotion to CMSgt.” Further, counsel concludes, “the IOs failure to conduct a proper investigation and applicant’s supervisor’s failure to    require

substantive facts before making decisions renders all actions taken against the applicant improper and unjust.”

Counsel challenges the sufficiency and completeness of the fact- finding inquiry. APFC/JA opines that the inquiry conducted was minimal. The totality of the IO’s effort consisted of meeting with the civilian’s husband, reviewing the electronic communications previously provided by him, receiving some additional communications provided by him, and an attempt to interview the applicant. The IO did not interview the civilian female, consider the possibility of motive or bias on the part of the husband, or attempt to authenticate the electronic communications that formed the basis for concluding that the applicant had wrongfully engaged in an intimate relationship of a sexual nature.

The applicant declined to make a statement as was her right. The IO states in her report, “at this time she (applicant) declined to allow me to talk to anyone else concerning this allegation.” Implicitly, this seems to be the reason put forth by the IO for not interviewing anyone else – namely the civilian female. However, as noted by the applicant, the AFI indicates that in homosexual statement cases (of which this is not one); the subject of the inquiry may not be forced to disclose other names. However, even that AFI provision would not prohibit the IO from talking to other relevant individuals. The legal advisor to the IO would certainly have provided guidance on this. Most importantly, the IO did not talk to the civilian herself, to determine what type of relationship, if any existed.

In this instance, the electronic communications were the key evidence. The authenticity and context of those communications were obvious issues to be developed and the one person who would have been best able to provide information along those lines was not interviewed. The result was that the IO did not interview anyone else absent the consent of the applicant. This was an error.

Assuming that the IO would have conducted the interview and the civilian testified substantially similar to her 13 Jan 11, notarized statement, then several key matters would have been raised. First, the motives of the husband who reported this are relevant. The context is that of a failed marriage beyond reconciliation according to the civilian. Second, the civilian provided context to her relationship with the applicant. Third, she specifically denied “there was ever any physical interaction or a relationship of a sexual nature.” Fourth, she stated the emails were modified and taken out of context. All four of these areas would have been directly relevant to a determination of whether the applicant had engaged in homosexual conduct and would have mattered on the question of propensity to engage in homosexual acts.
Again, for purposes of fact-finding in a homosexual conduct inquiry, it may be sufficient to only interview one  individual.

However, if that inquiry will later form the basis of a punitive action, such as a LOR, more inquiry into the credibility of witnesses and potential motives for making allegations should be accomplished. An additional important note in this case is the fact that the husband alleged that the applicant cheated on a Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) test, an allegation that was found to be unsubstantiated by the Office of Special Investigations (OSI). Further, facts tending to support or rebut finding that the applicant’s conduct was prejudicial to good and discipline were not developed at all.

The inquiry’s conclusion is based solely on the testimony of one person and paper copies of email exchanges between the applicant and the civilian, which in some cases are ambiguous such that it is difficult to tell whether the applicant and the civilian are platonic friends, in a physically sexual relationship, in a romantic, non-physical relationship, or a combination of these. Though there is no evidence that the husband was lying or fabricating evidence, there is, in fact no other information or evidence reviewed or obtained by the IO of whatever kind.

As previously noted, the fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct had neither as its purpose or within its scope whether or not the applicant engaged in misconduct. Had a CDI been directed or other investigative effort undertaken to investigate the offense addressed in the LOR, then a competent legal advisor would have undoubtedly noted the requirement for proof of “prejudice that is reasonably direct and palpable.” An IO conducting a thorough investigation would have developed the facts and circumstances probative of all the matters identified above and the ultimate determination of whether the alleged acts in this case were prejudicial to good order and discipline. Given the nature of the allegation and source of the evidence, analysis of the motives and bias of the witnesses would also be important to assess. The inquiry that was conducted did not address any of those matters. Even though the husband was interviewed, he did not assert that he was in any way negatively impacted in his ability to perform his duties nor did he provide independent facts from which one could conclude that there was a direct and palpable impact on good order and discipline.

Specific evidence on the issue of prejudice to good order and discipline was not developed by the inquiry. A thorough and impartial investigation into a precisely framed allegation of misconduct and conducted pursuant to the CDI Guide would have provided the decision-makers in the case all the facts and circumstances and the proper legal standards to apply. Not only does a thorough, impartial, and objective investigation yield reliable evidence upon which to make a decision, it also provides protections to the subject. Typically, an allegation of misconduct involving an inappropriate relationship, whether adultery, “adultery-like,” or unprofessional, is investigated as misconduct with a CDI. This is especially true when the accused is an officer

or senior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) occupying a leadership position.

While one might generally understand how a fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct might be used in lieu of a CDI, that approach does not seem reasonable here given the minimal information developed by the IO and limited scope of her analysis. Stated another way, while the IO’s report may have been legally sufficient for the purposes of a fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct, it was not, in our view, legally sufficient for the purposes of investigating the misconduct alleged in the LOR. There is an inherent problem in using a fact-finding inquiry for homosexual conduct to determine whether misconduct occurred- namely that an allegation of misconduct was not framed and specifically investigated.

While it would have been appropriate to point out the shortcomings of the inquiry at a subsequent homosexual conduct discharge board, a poorly conducted investigation does not in and of itself serve as a bar to adverse actions. However, to the extent it results in questionable and incomplete information being presented to a decision-maker, there is a ready nexus between a subpar investigation and potential doubt regarding the adverse action taken. Although the applicant was notified of a recommended discharge for homosexual conduct, ostensibly due to a federal court injunction and repeal of Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C) 654, that discharge action never processed to completion. Therefore, the issue turns to what, if any, impact did the lack of information from the civilian gathered during the inquiry have on the LOR and derivative actions?

As the fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct was used in lieu of a CDI or other investigation into the alleged misconduct, this is a question of some importance because, the LOR is based on the results of an inquiry on 12 Oct. Though the inquiry is not specifically identified in the LOR, it is apparently in reference to the homosexual fact-finding inquiry that was conducted and is dated 12 Oct 10.

As applied by military courts of criminal appeals the test for whether the evidence is legally sufficient is very deferential. Appellate courts will not overturn a finding of guilty if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, as the Board considers the LOR, the supervisor is due some deference. Unlike a court-martial conviction where a record of trial makes very clear what evidence was admitted for a particular offense, there is no analogous record required for an LOR.

Further, a commander or supervisor does not need to rely solely on evidence presented to them in the form of a report or written statements; they can rely on hearsay and personal knowledge   as

well. In this case, it is clear that the fact-finding inquiry was a primary source of information, but undoubtedly, the supervisor also relied on personal knowledge and observation. So in the light most favorable to the supervisor, including all reasonable inferences in favor of guilt, could a rational fact-finder have found all the elements of the offense by a preponderance of the evidence actually considered?  The answer is yes.
ELEMENTS:
1.	That the applicant wrongfully engaged in an intimate relationship of a sexual nature with another person;

2.	That, at the time, the applicant was married to another and/or the other person was married to an active duty Air Force member; and

3.	That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the applicant was to prejudice of good order and discipline in the Armed Forces.

Elements 1 and 2 are supported by the evidence gathered in the inquiry. The communications did at least include sexual innuendo and the applicant did so with the spouse of another military member. As to element 3, there is arguably sufficient evidence to draw the reasonable inferences that the husband would be adversely impacted by what he viewed as “cheating” and that this would impact his ability to perform military duty and thus prejudice good order and discipline. Further, the supervisor viewed the relationship as a “serious lack of judgment and integrity” that undermined the applicant’s ability to lead and thus prejudiced good order and discipline.

One could find that this is reasonable in light of the evidence considered and an assumption of a marriage that was harmonious or at least one that the parties to it were working to preserve. However, as the 13 Jan 11, affidavit of the civilian makes clear, that was not a valid or unrebuttable assumption. As she stated, “by Aug 10, a decision was made to divorce and submit an Early Release of Dependent’s packet. We both acknowledged that there was no future in our relationship.” She goes on to provide additional exculpatory information in favor of the applicant.

Although the applicant’s response put her supervisor on notice that the marriage between the complainant and civilian was experiencing difficulty, there was no effort undertaken to develop this information further and consider its impact on the allegation of an “inappropriate relationship” as “charged” in the LOR. Notably, the alleged misconduct described in the LOR was never investigated by CDI or otherwise. While the fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct did develop some information, it was not conducted with a view as to whether or not the applicant had committed misconduct. Further, although the LOR alleges that the applicant’s “misconduct had a direct detrimental effect on  good

order and discipline,” the inquiry on which the LOR is based contains no information as to how the relationship between the applicant and civilian impacted good order and discipline.

The complainant’s marriage to the female civilian was irretrievably broken and other exculpatory information was not considered by the supervisor in the decisions to serve and maintain the LOR or in the decision made to remove the applicant from her duties. This is directly attributable to a number of distinct decisions made in the processing of this case. Finally, the supervisor failed to make either the report or the evidence of the misconduct available to the applicant - such notice would have likely prompted the applicant to directly address those matters. These actions effectively make the affidavit of the female civilian “newly discovered evidence.”

While no single decision in this case can be characterized as material legal error, primarily due to the absence of the existing standards of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) actions that simply do not apply to a LOR, the cumulative effect of those decisions resulted in exculpatory information not being considered by the supervisor or other decision-makers who took the subsequent adverse actions against the applicant in this case.

Were this matter a court-martial the applicant would likely be able to successfully petition for a new trial pursuant to Rule for Court-Martial 1210 on the basis of “newly discovered evidence.” Were this matter an Article 15, the applicant would likely have pursued a set aside action. The point being that both of those processes have a mechanism for relief from an otherwise legally sufficient action when “new” information, if considered in the light of all other pertinent information, would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the applicant. That best describes the circumstances of this case.

The courts have for years held that an “injustice” within the meaning of 10 U.S.C 1552 means more than an action that seems unfair to an applicant, or that might cause collateral consequences. It has been defined as an action(s) or treatment by military authorities that “shocks the conscience or sense of justice.” Sawyer v. United States, 18 CL Ct 860 (1989). In our view, a process that fails to develop and consider exculpatory information is a process that offends one’s sense of justice. AFPC/JA opines that is what took place in this case. Therefore, the LOR should be declared void and expunged from the applicant’s records.

The LOR was apparently treated as an adjudicated matter with regard to subsequent adverse actions taken (including the referral EPR, UIF, removal of duties, removal from promotion list, and failure to receive decoration at Permanent Change of Station (PCS)). These actions are therefore tainted by the injustice attached to the LOR and should likewise be declared void and expunged from the applicant’s records.

AFPC/JA opines that voiding and expungement of these records should be viewed as actions taken without prejudice; that is the Air Force officials would retain the discretion to reinitiate these actions, if after a review of all the evidence in this case to include the exculpatory evidence, deemed them appropriate and in the best interest of the Air Force.
A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the LOR and UIF indicating the applicant’s former commander had the authority to issue a LOR if sufficient evidence was provided.

In accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2907, Unfavorable Information File (UIF) Program, paragraph 2.5.1, “commanders maintain the UIF and all of its documents/contents until the final disposition date unless early removal of the document or UIF is clearly warranted.”

IAW AFI 36-2907, paragraph 4.1.3, “while no standard of proof applies to administrative action proceedings, commanders should utilize the “preponderance of the evidence” standard when evaluating the evidence and every element of the offenses committed. A preponderance of the evidence means simply the greater weight of credible evidence. Whether such proof is available should be considered before initiating the administrative action. If such proof is lacking, administrative action is susceptible to being found legally unsupportable and, as a result, could be set aside. There is no requirement to prove any allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.”

IAW AFI 36-2907, paragraph 4.4, LORs, “A reprimand is more severe than a counseling or admonition and indicates a stronger degree of official censure. Commanders may elect to file a LOR in an UIF for enlisted personnel.”
A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SSM evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPS2PE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove her referral EPR indicating the applicant should exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief prior to seeking correction of her military records. IAW AFI 36-2406, Officer  and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, paragraph 10.1 the Eval uation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was established to provide all Air Force personnel with an avenue of relief for correcting errors  or injustices in evaluations at the lowest possible level. If an evaluation cannot be corrected u nder Table 10.2., Correcting Minor Errors on Evaluations, an applicant's first avenue of relief for correcting an evaluation is through the ERAB. An applicant's second and last avenue of relief is via the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). The a pplicant should exhaust all other avenues of relief before submitting her request to the AFBCMR.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPS2PE evaluation is at Exhibit E.
AFPC/DP3SP makes no recommendation indicating they have no equity in the decision regarding the removal of any of the ineligibility conditions that resulted in the loss of the applicant’s line number for promotion to CMSgt during cycle 10E9. The commander was in the best position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility for promotion and acted within his authority when he decided to nonrecommend her for promotion to CMSgt.

IAW AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, “commanders have the authority to nonrecommend members for promotion when they feel they are not ready to assume the duties and responsibilities of the next higher grade.”

AFPC/JA has reviewed the case and determined an injustice occurred with respect to the issuance of the LOR. Therefore, JA recommends the LOR and all subsequent adverse actions taken as a result, be removed from the applicant’s record.

AFPC/DP2SSM and DPS2PE both recommend denying the applicant’s request to remove the referral EPR and LOR, respectively.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit F.
AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of a PCS decoration indicating after a thorough review of the applicant’s official military personnel record, they were unable to verify the applicant was awarded or recommended for a PCS decoration. “Although the applicant provided numerous letters of recommendation, her referral EPR would have likely rendered her ineligible for a decoration because part of her service during the award period would be deemed as less than honorable.” To grant relief would be contrary to the criteria established by DoDM 1348.33, the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff, and/or the War Department.

However, should the Board approve the removal of the applicant’s referral EPR rendered during the period 16 May 10 to 15 May 11, “it would render the applicant’s entire period of service as honorable.”
A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation is at Exhibit G.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In a two-page response dated 22 Nov 16, the applicant, through counsel, agrees with the recommendation of AFPC/JA, indicating the failure to develop and consider exculpatory evidence renders the LOR unjust and recommends the LOR be voided and expunged from her records.  Further, JA determined that the unjust LOR tainted the

referral EPR, UIF, removal of duties, removal from the promotion list, and the lack of a PCS decoration.

With regard to her request to remove the referral EPR, she notes DPS2PE only argues she did not file with the Evaluations Reports Appeals Board (ERAB) before filing with the BCMR. However, this issue is moot since she has retired.

With regard to her request to remove the LOR, she notes DP2SSM recommends denial indicating the commander had the authority to issue the LOR “if sufficient evidence was provided.” The fact that the IO simply accepted the testimony of a clearly biased witness and did not take steps to verify his testimony does not rise to the level of “sufficient evidence.”

With regard to her request to be promoted to the grade of CMSgt, since, AFPC/DP3SP takes no position on whether or not the requested relief is appropriate, she cannot agree or disagree with their opinion. However, she does note they state her application was not timely filed, which is incorrect, as she was on active duty when the request for relief was filed.

With regard to her request for a PCS decoration, she notes AFPC/DP2SP recommends denial because no recommendation for an award was on record. However, she was in fact initially recommended for a decoration; therefore, had she not been the victim of an unjust investigation and negative personnel action, she would have been issued a PCS decoration.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.
2.	The application was timely filed.
3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we believe the applicant is the victim of an error and an injustice. In this respect, we note the AFPC/JA comment that while the investigating officer’s report may have been legally sufficient for the purposes of a fact-finding inquiry into homosexual conduct, it was not legally sufficient for the purposes of investigating the misconduct alleged in of letter of reprimand (LOR). Additionally, the IO did not talk to anyone else, absent the consent of the applicant and this was an error. The process that fails to develop and consider exculpatory information is a process that offends one’s sense of justice.  AFPC/JA opines that
1.	

is what took place in this case. Therefore, the LOR should be declared void and expunged from the applicant’s records. The LOR was apparently treated as an adjudicated matter with regard to subsequent adverse actions taken (including the referral EPR, UIF, removal of duties, removal from promotion list, and failure to receive decoration at Permanent Change of Station (PCS)). These actions are therefore tainted by the injustice attached to the LOR and should likewise be declared void and expunged from the applicant’s records. While we note the AFPC/DP2SSM, AFPC/DPS2PE, and AFPC/DP2SP recommendations to deny the applicant’s requests, after carefully considering the totality of the evidence before us, we agree with AFPC/JA and are persuaded that relief is warranted. Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

a.	The Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 10 November 10, and Unfavorable Information File (UIF) be declared void and removed from her records.

b.	Her AF Form 911, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (MSgt thru CMSgt) rendered for the period 16 May 10 through 15 May 11, be declared void and removed from her records.
c.	The Recommendation for Decoration (DÉCOR-6) Rip,  dated
23 July 2010, be processed and she be awarded the Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters (MSM w/2OLCs).
d.	All references related to her removal as Superintendent, Legal Office be removed from her records.

e.	She be promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) in  accordance  with  her  line  number  during  the  10E9 promotion cycle.
a.	

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05255 in Executive Session on 9 Nov 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.	Excerpts from Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 14 Jun 16.
Exhibit D.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 26 Jul 16 Exhibit E.	Memorandum, AFPC/DPS2PE, dated 9 Aug 16. Exhibit F.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 1 Sep 16. Exhibit G.	Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 24 Oct 16. Exhibit H.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 16.
Exhibit I.	Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Nov 16, w/atchs.
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above- entitled matter.