RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00852 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Designator Number (SDN) "509" (Resignations, In Lieu of Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard or Unsatisfactory Performance) be removed from his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He had an anxiety reaction after he received a traffic citation for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). There are no records of the DUI anywhere. Furthermore, his senior leadership wanted to make an example of him. In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, a letter from his co-worker and an article on Spin Codes. Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant completed Officer Training School (OTS) and was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 31 March 1965. On 28 May 1965, the applicant was tried and found guilty by civilian authorities for driving under the influence of alcohol and being forcefully restrained. The court fined him $100.00 and sentenced him to two days in jail. On 3 June 1965, the applicant's commander issued him a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) because his conduct during the arrest indicated a lack of respect for the law which caused civilian authorities to forcefully restrain him. He was also removed from the Human Reliability Program. On 7 June 1965, the applicant received a referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) due to his conduct. On 7 December 1965, a Medical Evaluation Board (MED) convened and diagnosed the applicant with a character disorder, specifically emotional instability reaction, passive aggressive type, severe. The MEB stated the applicant's disorder related back to his childhood and was manifested by childish manipulating activities, morbid resentment, stubbornness, irritability and fluctuating emotional attitudes, strong and poorly controlled hostility, guilt and anxiety, with phobic elements, somatic preoccupations and paranoid ideas. The MEB returned the applicant to duty and recommended he be considered for action under AFR 36-3, Officer Personnel, Administrative Discharge Procedures. On 10 January 1966, the applicant submitted his resignation under the provisions of AFR 36-12, para 16m, (Transfer to another service of the Armed Forces), stating he believed it would be in the best interest of everyone concerned that he tender his resignation. On 18 February 1966, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council rejected the applicant's resignation, stating that he had an unfulfilled service commitment and should apply under the provisions of AFR 36-12, para 16j, Resignations, in Lieu of Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard or Unsatisfactory Performance. On 2 March 1966, the applicant resubmitted his request under the provisions of AFR 36-12, para 16j, stating his resignation would be better for all concerned. On 25 March 1966, the Secretary of the Air Force accepted his resignation in lieu of further action under the provisions of AFR 36-3. He was honorably discharged from all appointments which he held in the United States Air Force, issued a SDN code of "509" (Resignations, in Lieu of Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard or Unsatisfactory Performance). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial of the applicant's request and states that after a review of the documentation on file in the master personnel record, they did not find any errors or injustice in the processing of his discharge from the Air Force. He was given the appropriate SDN code of "509." In addition, he has not filed a timely petition; it has been more than 43 years since he was discharged from the Air Force. The complete AFPC/DPSOS evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The report issued on his arrest does not tell the whole story. There is no record of any DUI ever being issued in North Dakota. The ticket must have been dismissed or reduced or was not reported as a DUI. In support of his rebuttal, he provides a proposed outline for the Board of Veterans' Appeals, a statement from a former member of his wing, and a copy of his 10 August 2009 DVA appeal. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, the Board excused the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient 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 submission, we are not persuaded that his SDN code should be changed. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive. In this regard, we note the applicant resigned from active duty due to his misconduct, which interfered with his military service. He has not established to our satisfaction that his SDN code of “509” (Resignations, In Lieu of Further Action, or Elimination, Because of, Substandard or Unsatisfactory Performance) was then, or is now, inaccurate or unjust. In respect to the applicant’s contention there is no record of his DUI, we note that his military personnel records contain a 23 May 1965 Incident Report prepared by the Grand Forks, AFB security and law enforcement office indicating that he was charged with DWI and being held in the Grand Forks County Jail. In addition, on 4 June 1965, the applicant signed a sworn statement, acknowledging that on 28 May 1965, he was tried and pled guilty to the charge of DUI and was fined $100 dollars and two days in jail. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the request. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 Docket Number BC- 2009-00852 in Executive Session on 27 October 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 09, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOS, dated 10 Aug 09. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Sep 09. Exhibit F. Applicant's Response, dated 22 Sep 09.