AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-00740 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

M;Q 

3,  ;2): 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
He  be  reinstated  in  the  Air  Force  with  no  break  in  service;  his  grade  of  staff 
sergeant (E-5) be reinstated, with all back pay, allowances, and accrued leave; he be 
immediately  selected  to  attend  Officer  Training  School  (OTS); his  records  be 
expunged of  all unfavorable information it contains that was a direct result of  the 
intentional injustice caused by the Air Force, including but not limited to Enlisted 
Performance  Reports  (EPRs),  DD  Form  214, medical  records,  and  Reports  on 
Individual Personnel (RIPS); he be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal with 
three Oak Leaf Clusters (AFGCM 30LC), the Air  Force Longevity Service Award 
Ribbon  (AFLSR)  w/2OLC,  and  the  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal  (AFCM) 
w/lOLC; and that he be reimbursed for his Montgomery G.I. Bill contributions.  By 
amendment dated 10 Jun 1996, the applicant requested that the G.I.  Bill issue be 
removed from consideration. 

. 

C.. 

- 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
On 9 Oct 1991, he was unjustly accused of not supporting his wife.  As a result, he 
was given a career-ending Article  15. He also had to pay back the $8,802.77 for 
Basic Allowance  for Quarters (BAQ) at the dependent rate since it was unjustly 
determined he had not provided support for his wife. 
After requesting that th3Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) forward 
his claim for BAQ to the General Accounting Office (GAO), it was determined by 
GAO that the file created by the Eglin AFB Accounting and Finance Office (AFO) 
did  not contain  evidence  to  adequately  support the fact that he  did  not  provide 
support for his wife during the period in question.  The GAO settlement certificate 
went on to state that on several occasions, his spouse certified he was providing for 
her, and that she never filed a formal or informal complaint for nonsupport or lack 
of adequate support. 
As a result of the GAO findings, he was reimbursed the $8,802.77 for BAQ that he 
had to pay back before separating and he was paid $806.83 for the period  he was 
unjustly denied BAQ (1 May 1991 - 17 Aug 1992). 
The GAO wanted his squadron commander to provide evidence to show he did not 
support his wife.  Not only could the commander not provide such evidence, but the 
only evidence indicated  support had been provided.  As a result, the GAO reversed 
the decision made by the commander. 

' 

*,*e  *- 

! 

1. 

8 

The  Military  Pay  Office  a t  

The Article  15 was based  on  two  allegations:  (1) He  certified that he provided 
adequate support for his wife for two years (May 1988 - May 1990) 
known  by  him  to  be  false;  and,  (2) 
determined that he either did not provide  his wife with  adequate 
not entitled to BAQ with-dependent rate.  The reasons given to him were:  (1) His 
wife was not living with him; therefore, he was not entitled to dependent-rate BAQ. 
(2)  His wife and he were legally separated; therefore, he must provide his wife at 
least the  difference  between  single  rate  and  dependent-rate  BAQ.  (3)  Marital 
discord existed in the marriage.  (4) There was  a third-party  complaint  against 
him for having received dependent-rate BAQ  when his wife  was not residing with 
him.  (5) He never provided his wife with adequate support payments for the period 
Jan 1985 - Apr 1991. 
The  Article  15 lent  itself  to another  confusing  matter. 
It  seems  that  a  PCS 
declination statement, unsigned and undated, was placed in his records without his 
knowledge.  He  was  told  that  because  of  the  Article  15 investigation,  his 
reassignment  orders  were  canceled.  This  situation  with  the  bogus declination 
statement  prevented  him  from  pursuing  the  Article  15.  On  31 Oct  1994, the 
AFBCMR determined that the declination statement never should have been placed 
in his records. 
The Article  15 destroyed his career.  Because  of  this grave  injustice,  he  was  not 
allowed to continue his career in the Air Force.  He was in the fast lane of his career 
when this injustice was committed against him.  If this constructive discharge had 
not occurred, he would be an Air Force officer today based on his achievements.  He, 
who had  a military record  more deserving of  a  promotion, was demoted to senior 
airman because of bogus, unjustifiable and incompetent statements and allegations. 
His documentation will show that the injustice committed against him was either 
intentional  or the result  of  severe incompetence.  Anything  short of  his requests 
would  preclude  him  fiom  being  made  whole  again  and  this  would  be  another 
injustice. 
In support of  is appeal, the applicant provided  copies of the following documents: 
GAO  Settlement  Certificate,  dated  27 Sep  1993; Article  15, dated  9 Oct  1991; 
ts; documents  from  the  Accounting  and 
r statements; a statement by his spouse; 
sues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). 

andotherdo 

- 

ade  of  E-3  for  a  period  of  four  years. 

the a s to this enlistment until 4 Jull989. He contracted his last enlistment on 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 5 Aug 1983, 
He  executed  an  extension  of 
in 23 mont 
10 Mar 1989, in the grade of E-5 for a period of four years. 
On  9 Oct  1991, the  applicant received  punishment under Article  15, UCMJ, for 
misconduct.  The reason cited was that on 21 May  1990, he signed a false official 
document, AF Form 987, “Recertification of Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) - 
Variabldent Plus  Housing Allowance  (VHALRPHA)”, when  he  certified  that he 
had provided adequate support for his wife for the previous two years and that his 

2 

AFBCMR 96-00740 

. 

wife resided with him.  The punishment consisted of a reduction to E-4 with a new 
date of rank of 9 Oct 1991. 
Applicant was authorized the following decorations:  AF Training Ribbon, National 
Defense  Service  Medal,  AFCM,  AF Organizatianal  Excellence  Award,  AFGCM 
loLC, AFLSA loLC, and the USAF NCO PME Graduate ribbon 1OLC. 
Applicant’s APR/EPR profile follows: 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

PERIOD ENDING 
7 Aug 84 
7 Aug 84 
7 Aug 86 
7 Aug 87 
14 Feb 88 
14 Feb 89 
14 Feb 90 
14 Feb 91 
*  14Feb92 

As  a result  of  the favorable consideration of  the applicant’s AFBCMR  appeal  on 
250ct  1994, his  record  was  corrected  to  show  he  was  honorably  released  from 
activeduty in  the  grade  of  E-4  on  31 Aug  1993, rather  than  17 Aug  1992,  by 
reason of “Early Separation Program-Strength Reduction,” rather than “Expiration 
of Term of Service.”  This correction allowed him to reach high year of tenure as an 
E-4, changing  his  total  active  military  service  to  10  years  and  26  days  (see 
AFBCMR 94-02186). 

- 

regard to the legal sufficiency o B the Article 15 at the time it was administered, and, 

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
The Air Force Legal Services A  ency, AFLSNJAJM, reviewed this application with 
whether a reasonable basis exists in law or fact to set aside the Article 15 and grant 
relief.  It is not possible to reassemble all of the information the commander had at 
his  disposal  in  deciding  whetherTer  not  the  applicant  committed  the  charged 
It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  he  had  before  him  the  third  party 
offense. 
complaint, which  even if later disputed  by  the  applicant and  his wife,  formed  a 
legitimate  basis  for  the AFO  to veri&  his  recertification.  Thus,  the  applicant’s 
complaint  of  being  discriminated  against  because  he  and  his  wife  chose  to  live 
separately is without merit. 
The  applicant’s  assertion  that the  form  was  ambiguous is  not  persuasive.  The 
Nov 1984 version of the form, signed by the applicant on 21 May 1990, asked for the 
complete current address of dependenwsharers.  The only matter that JAJM found 
unclear in this case is how the applicant could reasonably have concluded that the 
form was  ambiguous in his situation.  The applicant states that he  and his wife 
agreed that for matters involving the military, his address would be used.  He fails 
to  realize  that  any  such  agreement  between  him  and  his  wife  was  completely 
irrelevant for purposes of the certification form.  The fact that changes were made 
in later editions of  the form does  not  mean  that the form was  ambiguous in  his 
situation.  The version the applicant signed should be analyzed on its own merits. 

3 

AFBCMR 96-00740 

The fact is that the Air Force form asked  for his wife’s  complete current address. 
He knew his wife permanently resided elsewhere, yet he still certified falsely that 
she resided with him. 
The Legal Services Agency was not persuaded by his wife’s statement in which she 
attempted  to clarify three  previous  statements  she made.  Her  statement never 
defined  what  she  meant  by  adequate  nor  did  it  specifically  ever  state that  the 
applicant provided any support at all to her during the period  of  time  charged in 
the Article 15. Even if one believes the wife’s statement, the applicant has still not 
provided any evidence that he provided the minimum support required by the pay 
manual.  The fact that the GAO decided to “waive” the government’s claim does not 
mean that the applicant did not commit the offense for which he received Article 15 
8 100 dated 20 Sep 1988, made payable to the applicant’s wife, hardly sufficient to 
unishment.  The only proof of support in the application is a copy of one check for 
meet the minimum amount of support required by the regulation.  JAJM noted that 
only the applicant is listed on the account.  The applicant also provided a copy of a 
check dated  “5-1-1985” which  shows both  his  name  and  his  wife’s  name  on  the 
account.  He offered the 1985 check as proof that his wife had access to his funds if 
she wanted.  The applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the  1985 check 
long preceded the period of time charged in the Article  15. The  1988 check listed 
only the applicant on  the account, thus negating his  argument that his wife  had 
access to his account.  After carefully analyzing all of the documentation provided 
by the applicant, the Legal Services Agency recommended denial.  Their complete 
evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
The  Airman  Promotion  Branch,  AFPCDPPPWB,  reviewed  this  application  and 
stated that the applicant was reduced in grade from E-5 to E-4, with a date of rank 
and effective date of 9 Oct 1991, as a result of the Article 15 punishment.  His date 
of  rank and effective date to E-5 prior to the reduction was  1 May  1988. If the 
Board  sets  aside  the  Article  15 or  negates  the  reduction,  the  applicant’s  grade 
would revert to E-5, effective and with a date of rank of  1 May 1988 (Exhibit D). 
The BCMR and SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this application with regard 
to removal of the EPR closing 14 Feb 1992, and recommended approval.  According 
to the regulation,  evaluators must not consider or refer to “Article 15 and actions 
taken under Article  15.  Do  not  use  the term Article  15 or mention  punishment 
imposed  under  this  authority.”  The  applicant  does  not  state specifically  which 
unfavorable  personnel  data he would  like removed  from his  record  but DPPPAB 
assumed he is referring to documents relating to the Article 15. The statement on 
the  AF Form  77, Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet,  attached  to  the  EPR  closing 
14 Feb 1992, is in direct violation of the governing regulation and should be voided 
from the applicant’s record.  Since this office found no other evaluation report in his 
record that mentions the Article 15 or the behavior associated with it, no further 
changes  in  his  record  were  recommended  in  relation  to  this  issue.  DPPPAB’s 
evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
The  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch,  AFPCLDPPRP,  reviewed  this  application 
and recommended  denial.  The case has been  reviewed  for separation processing 
and there are no errors or irregularities causing an injustice to the applicant.  The 
separation complies with directives in effect at the time of  his release  from active 
duty.  The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the separation processing 
nor provide justification to warrant reinstatement to active duty (Exhibit F). 

- 

4 

AFBCMI3 96-00740 

The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPCLDPPPRA, stated that the applicant is not 
entitled to any other unit or individual awards and decorations than those shown 
on his DD Form 214. The AFGCM is awarded to enlisted personnel for three years 
of  exemplary  service while on  active  dut  .  The applicant spent  10 years and 26 
days on active duty, but received an Artic 7 e 15 on 9 Oct 1991. Therefore, he is only 
entitled to the AFGCM 1OLC.  The AFLSA is awarded to servicemembers for each 
four years of  active duty.  Since applicant only had  10 years of  active duty, he is 
only entitled to the AFLSA 1OLC.  There is no evidence in the applicant's  records 
that a recommendation  for the AFCM  lOLC was  ever  submitted  or  placed  into 
official channels.  He has provided no documentation to substantiate his request for 
additional awards and decorations (Exhibit G). 
The  Officer  Accessions  Branch,  AFPCLDPPAO),  reviewed  this  application  and 
recommended denial.  Without an application and proof of its rejection based on an 
error or an injustice, there is no basis to grant the applicant's  request for immediate 
selection  to OTS.  A  review  of  the records reveals  that the  applicant  was when 
discharged  and  is  currently  ineligible  to  apply  for  OTS because  of  his  age 
(maximum age is 30); his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code; and because he cannot 
complete OTS and be commissioned prior to his 35th birthday.  All commissionees 
must be  able to  accept their appointments early enough  to complete  20  years  of 
commissioned service before reaching age 55 (Exhibit H). 
The Commander's Programs Branch, AFPCDPSFC, stated that by operation of law, 
Title 10, USC, 701(b), members cannot carry over 60 days of accrued leave into the 
next fiscal year (FY). If the Board reinstates the applicant, DFAS restores 44 days 
of  accrued  leave  for  which  the  applicant  received  payment  on  31 Aug  1993. 
Thereafter, DFAS reduces the accrued leave balance to 60 days at the end of  each 
FY.  If  reinstated, the applicant's  leave balance will be  60 days as of  1 Oct, plus 
2.5days  earned  for  each  month  beginning  1 Oct.  DPSFC  recommended  denial 
(Ex hi bi t I). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
Copies of  the Air  Force  evaluations were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  26  Aug 
1996, for review and response (Exhibit J).  The applicant's  complete response and 
supporting documents are attached at Exhibit K. 

- 

%' 

The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by  existing  law  or 

The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1. 
regulations. 
2. 
excuse the failure to timely file. 
3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence 
of probable error or injustice.  The AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet to 
the Enlisted  Performance Report  closing  14 Feb  1992, contains references to the 
Article 15 and the actions taken under Article 15 in direct violation of the governing 
regulation.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of the Chief, 

5 

AFBCMR 96-00740 

BCMR  and SSB Section, that the report be voided  and removed  from his records. 
Even though we are recommending that the report be removed from the applicant’s 
record,  according to  the  office  of  primary  responsibility,  our  recommendation  is 
inconsequential  to  the  applicant’s  promotion  status  since  he  had  a  mandatory 
separation date. 

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence 
4. 
of  probable  error  or  injustice.  The  applicant’s documentation  was  thoroughly 
reviewed; however, we  did not find his arguments, either singularly or collectively, 
sufficiently compelling to override the rationale provided by the offices of  primary 
responsibility . 

a.  Other  than  his  own  assertions,  the  applicant  has  failed  to  provide 
sufficient evidence to sustain his argument that he was unjustly accused of signing 
a  false  oflicial  document,  Recertification  of  Basic  Allowance  for  Quarters  - 
Variablaent Plus Housing Allowance, when  he recertified that he  had  provided 
adequate support for  his  wife.  Even  though  the  GAO  waived  the  government’s 
claim  against  the  applicant  for  erroneous payment  of  dependent-rate  BAQ,  this 
decision by the GAO does not result in an inescapable conclusion that the basis for 
the Article 15 no longer exists.  The fact remains that the applicant signed a false 
official  document  when  he  certified  that  his  wife  resided  with  him  and  that  he 
provided adequate support for her.  Further, he still has not provided proof that he 
furnished his wife the minimum support required by the pay manual.  Since we are 
not persuaded by the documentation that the Article 15 was erroneous or improper, 
and the applicant has failed to show that his  substantial rights  were violated  or 
that the commander abused  his discretionary authority,  the issues raised  by  the 
applicant do not provide an adequate basis to justifjl- setting aside the Article  15. 
Therefore, we  agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air  Force Legal 
Services Agency and adopt their rationale as the basis to conclude that the Article 
15 was legally sufficient at the time it was administered and there is no legal basis 
in law or fact to set aside the Article 15 and grant the applicant relief. 

b. 

The applicant has not provided  documentation to substantiate that his 
service met the criteria for award of the AFGCM 30LC and he did not serve long 
enough to be  eligible to receive the AFLSR 20LC. Further, there is no  evidence 
that  a  recommendation  for  the  AFCM lOLC  was  ever  submitted.  Therefore, 
without evidence to the contrary, we conclude that the applicant is not entitled to 
these awards. 

- 

c. 

Since we are recommending denial of the above-mentioned requests, and 
we have seen no evidence indicating that the corrected reason for his separation is 
in error or unjust  in  any way,  we  find  no  basis  exists to  favorably consider his 
requests for restoration  of his grade of E-5, reinstatement on active duty with the 
attendant  benefits  and  allowances,  and,  the  removal  of  certain  unfavorable 
information and documents. 
5.  With regard to the applicant’s request for immediate selection to attend Officer 
Training School (OTS), there is no evidence that he ever submitted an application 
for OTS or that once submitted, his application was unjustly denied.  As noted by 
the Officer Accessions  Branch,  the applicant  has other disqualifying factors  that 
would-render him ineligible.  As such, we recommend that his request be denied. 

6 

~~ 

~ 

AFBCMR 96-00740 

i 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The  pertinent  military  records  of  the  Department  of  the  Air  Force  relating  to 
APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Enlisted Performance Report, rendered 
for the period 15 Feb 1991 through 14 Feb 1992, be declared void and removed from 
his record. 

The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in  Executive 
Session on 4 Mar 1997, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chairman 
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Member 
Mr. Mike Novel, Member 

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

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 1996, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSNJAJM, dated 7 Jun 1996. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPCDPPPWB, dated 18 Jun 1996, w/atch. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPCDPPPAB, dated 28 Jun 1996. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPCDPPRP, dated 5 Aug 1996. 
Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPCDPPPRA, dated 6 Aug 1996. 
Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPCDPPAO, dated 9 Aug 1996, w/atch. 
Exhibit  I.  Letter, AFPCDPSFC, dated 13 Aug 1996. 
Exhibit J. Letter, SAFNIBR, dated 26 Aug 1996. 
Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 

Panel Chairman 

- -  

7 

AFBCMR 96-00740