RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-00342

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXX

  	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.   The commander directed investigation (CDI), letter of reprimand (LOR), unfavorable information file (UIF) and other related information be removed from his record.

2.    His retirement date be effective 1 Nov 18 and he receive all back pay.

3.    He be paid for the cost of transportation for his retirement move, estimated at $5,000.

4.   He undergo a retirement physical examination at a military treatment facility (MTF) at no personal cost.

5.    He be awarded any other corrections and payments necessary to provide full relief.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

Counsel, on behalf of the applicant, states he was notified on 2 Jul 18 he was the subject of a CDI into allegations he used government resources for personal gain. The allegations were substantiated; however, both the Inspector General (IG) and Office of Special Investigations (OSI) declined to investigate.  In Apr 19, the applicant appealed the CDI and filed an Article 138 complaint.  

He was issued a LOR based on the substantiated allegations that he used government resources for personal and private gain and he took advantage of his status as the commander to advance his personal agenda at the expense of the government.  The LOR further stated he manipulated airmen under his command to help him accomplish his personal agenda.

He appealed the LOR noting the investigating officer’s (IO) failure to interview material witnesses, secure sworn statements and the commander’s failure to ensure an impartial legal review of the CDI.  An officer’s grade determination (OGD) was issued on the same day as the LOR.  The timing was evidence his commander prejudged him. An addendum to the OGD also notified the applicant of the intent to recoup money based on the conclusion he received pay and benefits not authorized.  The findings were never investigated by an impartial investigator.  

He initially applied for retirement in Apr 18, with a 1 Nov 18 retirement date, before any allegations were brought forward.  His commander did not act on the retirement package but instead initiated the CDI on or about 2 Jul 18.  On 30 Oct 18, the applicant wrote the director of human resources seeking assistance with his retirement process.  On 1 Aug 20, his new commander expressed support noting he was authorized in the fall of 2017 to leave active duty in the spring of 2018 and conduct his permanent change of station (PCS) relocation to Chicago, IL to begin his civilian employment.  As requested, it was agreed he would remain as a drill status guardsman (DSG) for the state through a major exercise and retire effective 1 Nov 18.  Due to administrative issues, the Air National Guard (ANG) did not approve his retirement until much later than the 1 Nov 18 approved date.  He also provides a letter from the Assistant TAG dated 21 Feb 20 validating he was authorized and directed to move his household goods (HHG) in May 18, in conjunction with his retirement from the State ANG.  

The procedural errors produced an inadequate investigation.  The truth is he did nothing wrong.  His attendance at Harvard University was approved and he processed and utilized leave as was customary in the State ANG.  While attending the university he discharged his ANG duties in an exemplary manner.  Once impartial officers considered the matter, all adverse actions were terminated and he was finally able to retire.  In statements to the IO, his commander stated he became concerned about his travel, leave and orders but at no time did his commander bring up the concerns with him.  If he had, he could have explained that his pay, leave and orders had been frozen since he resigned his Active Guard Reserve (AGR) orders.  The AFBCMR will see he never tried to avoid having his organization review the processes and did not hesitate to pay back any funds that were deemed to have been spent through administrative error.  His commander stated he was not aware he had attended classes, resigned his AGR position or that he was on orders to participate in an exercise and take leave before starting his civilian job; however, he had been briefed on the actions and approved his resignation before it went to Human Resources.  He filed an Article 138 complaint on 8 Apr 19 and appealed the CDI.  

The CDI guide states on the average an investigation should last 10 days.  However, his commander did not appoint an IO until three months after the initial meeting and the CDI was not completed until four months later on 2 Oct 18, with no action or notification given to him.  He sent letters to the human resources office and the TAG asking for assistance with his retirement but was continuously told it would be a few more weeks.  Suddenly, on 1 Jan 19, he was ordered to report for a meeting on 4 Jan 19, where he was advised of the CDI findings.  In the addendum to the OGD letter, he stated he was away from his duties for 86 days and that he had only performed 6 duty days out of 151 days for which he was paid.  

He did not receive any word on his status until Nov 19.  The new TAG informed him the accusations had been dropped, that the issues were due to administrative failures of the previous commander, the LOR was removed and they would approve his retirement immediately.  He received a retirement order dated 16 Jan 20, with an effective retirement date of 1 Jan 20.  He had no opportunity to accomplish any of the items he had hoped to accomplish prior to his retirement.  

AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, Chapter 2, authorizes commanders to suspend retirements under limited circumstances when appropriate such as under civil or military investigation.  No provision of law that permits a commander to simply withhold a retirement package has been identified.  His commander failed to identify any factors until Jul 18 and then failed to follow the notification procedures established in AFI 36-2603.  His actions were unlawful and resulted in the unnecessary delay of his retirement.  His retirement was needlessly delayed from 1 Nov 18 to 1 Jan 20 and the Board should correct his retirement to 1 Nov 18, with back pay.

The Air Force failed to compensate him for his 2018 retirement move.  He relocated in 2018 in good faith based on his submitted retirement application; however, has not been compensated for his relocation expenses as authorized by the Joint Travel Regulation (JTR), the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) and DOD regulations. 

The Air Force also failed to provide him the required separation physical examination or the required separation counseling.  The AFBCMR must order a comprehensive examination be made at the military treatment facility (MTF) or Veterans Affairs (VA).  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Force colonel (O-6).

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued 31 Mar 18, shows he performed a period of active duty in the Air National Guard.  He was on active duty orders as an AGR in accordance with Title 32 U.S.C. 502(f) from 1 Apr 14 to 31 Mar 18.  He was released from active duty with a narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service.”  He was credited with 4 years of active duty service for the period.  

In an email on 5 Apr 18, the applicant was informed by his commander of the decision to revoke his active duty orders that began on 1 Nov 17 based on evidence his work days were not used for intended purpose and he did not perform his duty to justify continuous orders.  

On 30 Oct 18, the applicant requested assistance with the processing and approval of his retirement application submitted in Apr 18 for retirement effective 1 Nov 18.  He requested he be approved for retirement within a 60 day window.

SAF/IGQ provides CDI concerning the applicant’s use of official time and travel funds to attend Harvard University and whether the unit had internal controls in place to detect and prevent government resources from being utilized for other than official purposes dated 31 Oct 18.  The applicant at the time was the base commander for the Combat Readiness Training Center (CRTC).  On 2 Jul 18 the State ANG Commander (ANG/CC) appointed an IO to investigate the allegations the applicant used government resources for personal gain.  The report of investigation (ROI) shows the appointed IO was not in the same unit or State ANG.  The ROI shows the following allegations:

	Allegation 1:  Between 1 Oct 14 and 31 May 18, the applicant, a member of the State ANG, on divers occasions wrongfully used official time, receiving pay and benefits, without authority for attending a civilian master’s degree program in Cambridge, MA, while in an official duty status as an AGR residing in Gaylord, MI, in violation of DOD 5500.07, Joint Ethics Regulation, paragraph 2-100 and 5 CFR 2635.705(a). (SUBSTANTIATED).   The ROI states the applicant used military tuition assistance, which is intended to support off-duty, part-time attendance.  It was not conceivable that the applicant could attend an in-residence program at Harvard University in Cambridge, MA while living in Gaylord, MI and work at the CRTC in MI on the same duty day.  Therefore, he would be required to take leave to attend Harvard University, which he did not do.  Leave usage history showed five episodes of leave requested for the area of Boston or Cambridge, MA.  Three of the requests were canceled and the other two were processed but were for dates prior to the period in which he attended the university.  The preponderance of the evidence shows that between 1 Oct 14 and 31 May 18, the applicant wrongfully used official time, receiving pay and benefits without authority, for attending a civilian master’s degree program while in an official duty status as an AGR officer or on active duty orders.

	Allegation 2:  Between 1 Oct 14 and 31 May 18 May, the applicant used and received official government travel resources for his personal gain to attend a civilian master’s degree program.  (SUBSTANTIATED).  The applicant’s Defense Travel System (DTS) history showed 35 trips completed that included Boston or Cambridge, MA in the itinerary.  Of those, 8 were approved improperly as permissive temporary duty (PTDY).  In all, the applicant received reimbursement of $46,137.85 for the trips in totality.  This included two travel vouchers that may prove to be official in nature.  There was a presumption the applicant’s leadership must have approved it or he would not have been doing what he did, which is why his actions were not questioned.  Witness testimony specifically states they assumed the commander would not be submitting a DTS authorization for approval if he had not acquired permission from his leadership to do so.  The State ANG/CC specifically stated he never approved the applicant to be in either a PTDY or official duty status using appropriated travel funds to transport him to school or cover his expenses while he was attending school.  The ANG/CC believed the applicant was taking on-line courses until he had questions about his leave usage that prompted him to investigate the applicant’s leave and travel records, ultimately revealing the applicant was travelling to and from Boston on official orders.  No evidence was provided written or via testimony that the applicant was approved to attend in any status other than an unofficial status.  The applicant verifiably spent 90 days or portions of days in the Boston or Cambridge, MA area while drawing transportation and/or per diem allowances.  

	Allegation 3: Between 1 Oct 14 and 31 May 18, the unit failed to have appropriate controls and procedures in place to ensure that all members of the unit utilized government resources, including but not limited to, official time and travel resources for only authorized purposes in violation of DTS rules and DOD JTR. (SUBSTANTIATED).  The CRTC failed to have appropriate controls and procedures in place to ensure that all members of the CRTC utilized government resources, including but not limited to official time and travel resources for only authorized purposes in violation of DTS rules and DOD JTR.  

The IO recommended numerous actions to include appropriate disciplinary action for the applicant, collection of travel reimbursements, re-computation of all travel vouchers, additional investigation and re-computation of travel performed by the applicant, cancellation of previously approved PTDY, retroactively charging leave for verifiable on site university attendance and erroneous PTDY (at a minimum of 77 days) and collection of any excess leave utilized on AGR or active duty tours.   

On 4 Jan 19, the applicant received a LOR.  An investigation revealed he used government resources for personal and private gain.  Specifically he attended classes at the university on diverse occasions between Jan 16 and May 18 while in an official duty status and utilizing government resources without authority.  The actions were in violation of DOD 5500.7-R, Joint Ethics Regulation.  The applicant was reprimanded.  The LOR stated he took advantage of his status as the commander of a training center at a remote location to advance his personal agenda at the expense of the government.  The impact reverberated beyond monetary loss.  He manipulated airmen to help him accomplish his agenda and some airmen could face negative career consequences because he failed to ensure they executed their fiduciary responsibilities accordingly.  It stated the LOR would be filed in an UIF.  

Counsel provides the Addendum to the OGD Notification dated 3 Mar 19.  It stated the memorandum was an addendum to the OGD Notification dated 4 Jan 19.  The addendum informed the applicant additional factual information would be added for consideration of the OGD.  A memorandum for record (MFR) was prepared to document the meeting with regard to the revocation of his active duty orders; the total number of days during his AGR period for which he was away from his duties while attending an unauthorized university program was 86 days.  Further, he only had 30 days of leave and was 56 days in the arrears.  The total number of days for which he performed military duty during the active duty order was 6 out of 151 days he was paid for.  

On 23 Apr 19, the applicant appealed the CDI, requested the LOR be rescinded, the OGD and the OGD addendum be rescinded and the State Finance Office be allowed to determine if any travel was procedurally incorrect and that he be allowed to reimburse the government.  The applicant contended the OGD Addendum referencing his days of accumulated leave and days worked were incorrect.  The CDI also stated he attended classes at Harvard University for 86 days but only identified 77 days.  Also, 14 of the 77 days were for an Executive Course at the National Defense Policy attended by many National Guard officers and he completed this program prior to starting his master’s degree program.  Even if his attendance at Harvard University was improper, at most there are 69 days of class attendance, rather than the asserted 86 days.  Further, the classes were held in the evenings and he worked remotely and was accessible to the CRTC.  He stated the degree was directly applicable to his ANG duties and was of no use to him in his civilian job as an airline pilot.  He submitted PTDY and TDY paperwork for each and every trip he made to Harvard University and they were duly approved.  His commander also had full knowledge of his transition from AGR to active duty orders.  

Counsel, in a memorandum to the State ANG General Counsel, dated 25 Nov 19 stated while there was no formal appeal process for a CDI appeal, it was requested the next echelon review the CDI.   The State ANG/CC failed to impose, enforce and implement an adequate system for travel and leave accountability.  The failure of the ANG/CC in providing direct supervision led to inadequate controls and therefore, he was not a neutral party to resolve factual errors raised and to decide substantive relief for the administrative punishment.  The applicant indicated he was willing to pay back the money or make it right.  

The applicant’s NGB 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued 31 Dec 19, shows the applicant was discharged 31 Dec 19 with Authority and Reason as AFI 36-3203, Chapter 3, Transfer to the Air Force Retired List-AGR Only/2- years or more of total active federal military service/not age 60.  

Counsel provides memorandum dated 21 Feb 20, showing the Assistant TAG issued a letter in lieu of orders stating the applicant was authorized and directed to move his household goods (HHG) in May 18, in conjunction with his retirement from the State ANG.  

Per Special Order dated 16 Jan 20, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ANG on 31 Dec 19 and transferred to the Air Force Retired List on 1 Jan 20.  The applicant’s retired grade reflects as colonel.  Highest Grade on Active Duty is blank; however, his records do not show an OGD was initiated in accordance with AFI 36-3203.  The order includes entitlement for authorized home of selection permanent change of station entitlement and included fund cite for HHG and Non-temporary Storage (NTS).  

The applicant’s records do not include a LOR, UIF or OGD.  The CDI is on file with the Air Force Inspector General (IG) office.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory opinions at Exhibits C and D.  

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution, paragraph 1.43.1, Commander Directed Investigations (CDI).  All commanders possess inherent authority to investigate matters or incidents under their jurisdiction unless preempted by a higher authority.  The primary purpose of a CDI is to gather, analyze and record relevant information about matters of primary interest to command authorities.   CDIs remain an official record for the command and appointing authority.  

DODI 6040.46, The Separation History and Physical Examination (SHPE) for the DOD Separation Health Assessment (SHA) Program, Table 1, Summary of SHPE Qualification Categories, Reserve Component members separating after greater than 180 days of continuous active duty orders.  Not Filing Claim: Complete the SHPE at an MTF or by DOD contracted services prior to separation from active duty.  Filing Claim: Complete the separation exam with the VA when possible.  If the VA cannot perform the exam before the projected separation from active duty, the SHPE must be completed at an MTF or by DOD contracted services prior to separation from active duty.  In that case, the VA will review and perform additional disability exams as necessary, in accordance with the 2013 VA/DOD Memorandum of Agreement.   Paragraph 1.2.d, for service members who are filing disability claims with the VA, the separation exam performed by the VA may be used to meet the SHPE requirements if it can be performed and documented according to established procedures.  The applicant did not provide any documentation to show whether he received an examination from the VA or whether he filed or did not file any disability claims with the VA.  

AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, paragraph 6.1. Standard Medical Examination for Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve and ANG.  All retiring members must take a comprehensive separation and physical examination (SHPE) unless the members are separating or retiring after being found unfit for continued military service through the disability evaluation process and completed the exams in that process.  The application of the requirement for a comprehensive SHPE to AFR personnel is limited to certain criteria.  

AFI 36-3203, Table 3.1., Conditions Prohibiting Initial Submission or Suspending Processing of Previously Submitted Retirement Applications, Rule 1.a., If a member is under civil or military investigation, the member is not eligible for voluntary retirement.  If an application has already been submitted or a retirement has been approved, action will be taken to place the retirement in an administrative hold.  After completing all investigations and all actions resulting from the investigation, the member’s commander or staff judge advocate will take action to return to normal application processing.  Table 3.1, Rule 2.  If the member is subject to an OGD initiated by any commander or other authorized official, the application or retirement will be placed in suspension until the SAFPC completes the review of the OGD and the appropriate authority has made the final grade determination.  

Joint Travel Regulation (JTR), Paragraph 2200-D1/2 advises that travel reimbursement is not authorized when travel is performed before receipt of a written order and expenses incurred before receipt of a written order are not reimbursable.  Paragraph 5208-E authorizes HHG transportation before an order is issued if a member initiates a request and the request is supported by a statement by the action officer that the member was advised and submitted a written statement that they agreed to pay any additional costs incurred for transportation to another point should the station of assignment in the order be different.  The “Letter-in-Lieu” statement must be issued prior to transportation of the HHG.   

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1PP recommends denial for change of the retirement date.  With respect to the CDI, it is not within their office to determine whether the submitted CDI was justified.  The submitted retirement request was allowed to be suspended due to military investigation in accordance with AFI 36-3203, Table 3.1, Rule 1a.  The retirement approval authority should have provided a written notification following the verbal notification to suspend the retirement.  Additionally, after the investigation concluded the retirement should have been effective as soon as possible after the administrative hold was released.  Given the provided timeline on the applicant’s appeal, Jan 20 was the earliest possible date to effect the retirement.  The applicant’s request for retirement effective Nov 18 is without consideration due to the CDI.  A legal review of the evidence to determine whether the TAG had the right to hold the retirement application to pursue the CDI is recommended.  If legal deems the CDI was unauthorized, an adjustment to the retirement date should be approved.  

NGB/A1PP provides the State ANG/JA Legal Review of CDI Appeal dated 16 Jul 19.  The applicant appealed the CDI and requested the CDI into the circumstances of his attendance at Harvard University while in an official duty status be voided. He also requested the LOR be rescinded and that the OGD with addendum referral be withdrawn.  The applicant also requested the finance office be allowed to determine if any travel was procedurally incorrect and he be allowed to reimburse the government.   The finance office was in the process with making a final calculation of the total debt and it was recommended the request for removal of the CDI, LOR and OGD be denied.  The applicant cites the CDI guidance as authority for an appeal; however, there is no formal appeal process for a CDI but the applicant could appeal to the AFBCMR.  The applicant’s specific claims and the number of days are addressed with discussion of evidence.  He submitted requests in the Defense Travel System (DTS) for which an airman and noncommissioned officer were the processing officials with him as the final approval.  The request for PTDY also required application through a commander with leave paperwork, which did not occur.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

NGB/SGPS recommends denial for retirement physical.  Based on the documentation provided, the applicant should likely be granted a SHPE.  The documentation indicates he resigned from his AGR tour on 31 Oct 17 and was placed on active duty orders from 1 Nov 17 to 31 May 18; however, no orders were submitted to substantiate the AGR and active duty tours. The application requires proof of service in order to render the recommendation to grant the applicant a SHPE.  Without orders, they are unable to grant a SHPE in accordance with AFI 36-3203, DAFMAN 48-123 and DODI 6040.46.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent copies of the advisory opinions to the applicant on 13 May 22 for comment (Exhibit G), and the counsel replied on 20 Jun 22.  Counsel contends the advisory opinions are unclear, ambiguous and prepared by two senior noncommissioned officers who are not lawyers.  While both recommend denial, each recommends further evidence or inquiry be made.  Neither opinion offers rationale for denying the application that would pass muster under the Administrative Procedure Act.  Therefore, the AFBCMR cannot lawfully adopt the opinions as its own rationale without independent consideration and a careful weighing of the evidence and legal provisions cited.  

The NGB/A1PP advisory recommends a legal review to determine whether there was legal authority to hold the retirement; however, recommends denial.  There was no justification for the CDI.  It was a malicious act and the retirement delay was unlawful.  

The NGB/SGPS advisory opinion only addresses the claim for the retirement physical and recommends denial based on the lack of orders for 1 Nov 17 to 31 May 18.  The Air Force possesses those orders and the applicant requests his complete service record be made a part of the application as normally is the case. Neither opinion addresses the applicant’s claim that the CDI was fatally flawed due to its failure to adhere to basic procedures designed to ensure fairness and accurate outcomes.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit G.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board conducted its own independent review of the applicant’s case and concurs with the rationale and recommendations of NGB/A1PP and NGB/SGPS and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions. Counsel contends the CDI was erroneous, malicious and based on an inadequate investigation; however, counsel has provided insufficient evidence to substantiate this to be the case.  Based on the CDI ROI, provided by SAF/IG, the Board concludes the evidence substantiates the applicant wrongfully used his rank and position to receive travel and transportation benefits while attending an off-duty civilian master’s degree program, which was out-of-state from his unit of assignment and place of residence in violation of DOD 5500.07, Joint Ethics Regulation.  While counsel contends the receipt of travel and transportation benefits were due to administrative errors attributed to subordinate airmen responsible for managing the DTS, TDY and leave programs, the Board finds the applicant, a commander in the rank of colonel, should have known the receipt of travel and transportation entitlements to attend an off-duty graduate program was improper, unethical and violated DOD and Air Force regulations.  To simply state the applicant was available and working remotely while attending his college courses and was willing to make restitution and repay the overpayment does not negate the applicant’s wrongdoing and misconduct.  Accordingly, the Board finds no evidence the ROI was based on an inadequate investigation or that the three substantiated allegations of wrongdoing were in error and that the applicant did nothing wrong as counsel contends.  Counsel also asserts the Board should discount the advisory opinions because they were not prepared by lawyers; however, there is no requirement advisory opinions must be issued by attorneys.  In this respect, the advisory opinions were issued by the offices of primary responsibility (OPR) pertaining to the applicant’s requests.  Moreover, the Board notes a legal review of the applicant’s appeal of the CDI was completed and in a memorandum dated 16 Jul 19, the State ANG/JA found the CDI was legally sufficient, recommended the TAG deny the appeal and direct the process for recoupment action.  In view of the above, the Board finds insufficient evidence to warrant removal of the CDI or LOR.  With respect to the request for removal of the UIF, the Board notes the applicant no longer has a UIF; therefore, there is no action required by the Board for removal of a UIF.  Counsel also asserts the Board should grant the applicant’s 1 Nov 18 retirement request citing he applied for retirement in Apr 18 before any allegations of wrongdoing were brought forward and that the delay in approving his retirement was unjust.  However, the Board finds it was within his commander’s authority and discretion in accordance with AFI 36-3203 to delay the applicant’s retirement pending completion of the CDI ROI and administrative actions.  While the Board does not know why the State ANG did not proceed with the processing of the OGD or OGD addendum in accordance with AFI 36-3203, the Board does not find it was due to a finding the applicant did nothing wrong.  With respect to the request for reimbursement of his HHG, the Board notes counsel provides a letter in lieu of orders dated 21 Feb 20 to support movement of HHG in May 18.  However, in accordance with the JTR, a letter in lieu of must be issued prior to the movement of any HHG.  Accordingly the Board finds the 21 Feb 20 letter in lieu of to support movement of HHG in May 18 insufficient to authorize HHG entitlements.  With respect to the request he be granted a SHPE in accordance with AFI 36-3203, the Board finds it appears the applicant did not receive a SHPE prior to his retirement.  However, DODI 6040.46 permits an examination performed by the VA for filing disability claims to be used to meet the SHPE requirements if it can be performed and documented according to established procedures.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence the applicant did not receive a qualifying examination from the VA, the Board is unable to grant the applicant’s request for a SHPE.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.
 
4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-00342 in Executive Session on 9 Aug 22:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 8 Feb 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: CDI ROI, dated 31 Oct 18 (WITHDRAWN).
Exhibit D:	Advisory Opinion, NGB/A1PP, w/atch, dated 17 Jun 21.
Exhibit E:  Advisory Opinion, NGB/SGPS, dated 19 Aug 21.  
Exhibit F:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 13 May 22.
Exhibit G:	Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 20 Jun 22.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.