IN THE MATTER OF: 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RE 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

11998 
DOCKET NUMBER:  94-02889, CS#2 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR)  rendered for the period 
24 October  1992  through  23  October  1993 be  either  upgraded  or 
declared void. 
2.  The  punishment  imposed  upon  him  under  Article  15,  Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ), dated  30  June  1993,  be  set 
aside. 
3.  Any and all records pertaining to the events indicated in the 
Article  15,  dated  30  June  1993, be  removed  from his  Personnel 
Information Files  (PIF), to include the following documents: 

a.  AF Form 286a, signed 27 July 1993, by BG K...A-.. 
b.  AF  From  590,  signed  27  July  1993  by  BG  K...A.. 

-- 

(Withdrawal/Reinstatement to bear firearms). 

c.  AF Form 2086 (sic), signed 28 July 1993, by Captain T...S... 
d.  Any  and  all  documents  relating  to  the  Referral  EPR 
(letter, signed on 7 March  1994 by  SMSgt E...S... and  the  16 March 
1994 letter signed by applicant). 

e. 

f. 

g .  

22  (sic 

AF Form 77, dated 24 March 1994, signed by Lt Col R...B... 
AF Form 2086  (sic), signed 22 April 1994, by Major K...  J... 
Computer printout  of Classification of  Training, dated 
April 1994. 
AF Form 418  (Reenlistment) signed by Lt Col R...B..., dated 

h. 

25 April 1994. 

i.  Letter, signed 29 April 1994, by Captain D...M... 

j .  

Letter,  dated  8  November  1995,  Ref:  Issuance  of  Temp 

I.D. Cards, signed by, Captain D...M... 
4.  The  EPR  rendered  for  the  period  24  October  1993  through 
25 July 1994 be declared void or the grade be changed. 

AE'BCMR  94- 02889 

5.  He be considered for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant 
by cycles 93, 94A, and 95A. 
6.  He  be  restored  to  active  duty  and  allowed  to  reenlist  for 
period of four (4) years. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Another airman made a pass at him, he threw the airman out of his 
(applicant's) room and threatened to tell others about the act. 
Applicant  indicates  that  the  other  airman  made  a  preemptive 
complaint in order to protect himself.  Applicant contends that 
his  commander  believed  that  by  accepting  the  Article  15,  he 
(applicant) was guilty of the  act  and  the commander refused to 
wait for serology results from the laboratory of a semen stained 
towel  which  would  have  proved  applicant's  innocence. 
He 
indicates that his commander was vindictive. 

In support of his request, he  submits copies of the Article  15 
and  the  denial  of  the  set-aside  request;  an  excerpt  from  the 
transcript  of  the AFR  39-10 Administrative Discharge Board  and 
the  Report  of  the  Board  Proceedings;  supporting  letters,  the 
contested EPRs, and related documents; documentation relating to 
his appeal of his non-selection for reenlistment; and the taped 
recording of the Administrative Discharge Board proceedings 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
On  31  December  1990,  the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of 
Military  Records  considered  and  granted  an  application  for 
correction  of  military  records  in  applicant's  behalf. 
As  a 
result, applicant was reinstated to active duty.  A complete copy 
of the Record of Proceedings of that application is attached at 
Exhibit B. 
During the time period in question, applicant was serving in the 
Regular Air Force in the grade of airman first class. 
Between 3 June 1993 and  13 August  1993, the Air Force Office of 
Special  Investigation  (AFOSI), initiated  an  investigation  of 
indecent acts with another, in violation of Article 134, Uniform 
Code  of  Military  Justice  (UCMJ).  The  information  received 
indicated that applicant, while in his room, masturbated another 
airman  and  than  used  the  other  airman's  hand  to  masturbate 
himself.  Interviews were  obtained  during  this  time period  and 
evidence was collected which consisted of items of clothing from 
both  airmen, towels, blankets,  sheets, blood  and  saliva samples 
from both airmen and a semen sample from applicant.  The physical 

2 

AFBCMR  94- 02889 

the  US  Army  Criminal  Investigations 
for analysis on 8 June 1993. 

evidence was  forwa 
Labor at or y  (USAC IL ) 
On 23  June 1993,  applicant was  administered a polygraph test by 
the AFOSI.  It was  the  opinion of  the polygraph  examiner  that 
applicant's  responses  to  the  relevant  questions  indicated 
deception. 
On  17  June  1993,  while  serving  in  the  grade  of  sergeant, 
applicant was notified of his unit commander's  intent to impose 
on him for the following:  "You, did at 

on  or  about  3 

by mas 
g the 

--  

your penis. '' 
On 24 June 1993, applicant was advised that there was a change of 
unit  commander  and  that  the  new  unit  commander  would  decide 
whether or not to impose non-judicial punishment, and if so,  the 
terms of the punishment.  Applicant  acknowledged receipt of the 
notification. 
On 30 June 1993, after consulting with counsel, applicant waived 
his  right  to  a  trial  by  court-martial,  requested  a  personal 
appearance and submitted submit a written presentation. 
On 30 June 1993, applicant was found guilty by his unit commander 
who  imposed the  following punishment:  reduction in grade  from 
sergeant to  airman first class, with  a date of  rank of 30  June 
1993,  and a reprimand which indicated that applicant's  indecent 
homosexual acts on or about 3  June  1993 were  reprehensible and 
.that such  behavior  was  incompatible  with  military  service  and 
seriously impaired the accomplishment of the military mission. 
On  30  June  1993,  applicant's  unit  commander  notified  applicant 
that  he  was  being  Permanently  Decertified  from  the  Personnel 
Reliability Program  (PRP) and that his authority to bear firearms 
was  being  withdrawn  based  on  the  fact  that  he  had  wrongfully 
committed an indecent homosexual act on or about 3 June 1993 and 
that  such  behavior  did  not  meet  the  necessary  standards  for 
duties under PRP and was not consistent with having the authority 
to bear firearms. 
On  1  July  1993,  another  new  unit  commander  took  command  of 
applicant security police squadron. 
Applicant appealed the punishment; however, the appeal was denied 
on 18 July 1993 by the appellate authority.  On 19 July 1993, the 
new  unit  commander  directed  the  Article  15  be  filed  in 
applicant's Unfavorable Information File  (UIF). 
On  27  July  1993,  the  reviewing  official,  BG  K...A..., 
approved 
applicant's  PRP  decertification  and  the  withdrawal  of  his 
authority to bear firearms. 

AFBCMR  94- 02889 

On  13 August  1993,  a  review of  the  USACIL- 
Chemistry- 
Serology laboratory report disclosed semen staining on the beige 
towel  seized  from applicant's  room  and  the  laboratory analysis 
eliminated the other airman as the contributor of the stain. 

On  9  September  1993,  applicant  was  notified  of  his  squadron 
commander's  intent to recommend him  for a general discharge for 
homosexuality, in accordance with AFR 39-10, Section G, paragraph 
5-35a.  Specifically, the commander indicated that his reason for 
this  action  was  that  applicant  committed  homosexual  acts  with 
another airman on or about 3 June 1993. 
The  commander  advised  applicant  of  his  right  to  consult  legal 
counsel; present his case to an administrative discharge board; 
be  represented  by  legal  counsel  at  a  board  hearing;  submit 
statements in his own behalf in addition to, or in lieu of, the 
board  hearing; or waive  the above  rights after  consulting with 
counsel. 
On  20  September  1993,  after consulting with  counsel,  applicant 
did not waive his right to an administrative discharge board. 
Applicant  was  notified  on  13  December  1993  that  his 
Administrative Discharge Board would be held on 17 December 1993. 

- -  

~~ 

e  Discharge  Board  was 
On  17  December 
convened  at  RAF 
After  considering  the 
evidence,  a major 
that applicant did  not 
commit  a  homosexual  act  for  which  he  received--an Article  15. 
They recommended that applicant be retained in the Air Force. 
On  10 January 1994, applicant requested that his unit  commander 
set-aside  the  Article  15  on  the  basis  of  the  findings  and 
recommendations  of  the  Administrative  Discharge  Board.  After 
reviewing  applicant's  request,  his  unit  commander  denied  the 
request to set-aside the Article 15 and so notified applicant on 
23 February 1994.  The unit commander stated "In considering your 
request,  I  have  considered  your  entire  military  record,  your 
failure of  the AFOSI  polygraph  examination,  the AFOSI  serology 
report,  the AFOSI  report  of  investigation,  the  results 
administrative  discharge  board,  the  results  of 
administrative discharge board.  After  careful consideration of 
the  facts  and  circumstances  surrounding  this  case,  I  am  not 
persuaded  that  there  is  any  new  evidence  that  causes  a  clear 
injustice within  the meaning of AFR  111-9.  I  remain convinced 
that you did engage in the alleged homosexual act.'' 

Applicant's  defense  counsel  appealed  to  the  unit  commander  on 
17 March  1994  to  set  aside  the  Article  15. 
There  is  no 
indication in  the  record  that  the  unit  commander  approved  the 
request. 

4 

AF'BCMR  94- 02889 

Applicant appealed this decision on 2 May 1994. 

On 13 April 1994, applicant, while serving in the grade of airman 
first  class,  was  not  recommended  for  reenlistment  by  his 
The  supervisor  stated,  "A  historical  review  of 
supervisor. 
[applicant's]  excellent  duty  performance  is  marred  by  a 
A 
nonjudicial  punishment  for  which  he  was  found  guilty. 
considerable amount  of positive  information dated prior  to  the 
aforementioned incident is on record, however, I do not feel this 
counterbalances the situation.  Without  the removal or reversal 
of  this  finding,  I  do  not  foresee  a  mutually  productive 
relationship  between  the  US  Air  Force  and  [applicant]  as 
realistically obtainable through reenlistment."  Applicant's unit 
commander did not select applicant  for reenlistment on 25 April 
1994. 
A legal review was conducted by the Staff Judge Advocate  (SJA), 
48FW/JA and on 17 August  1994 concluded that the 48FW/CC should 
concur in the recommendation to deny reenlistment and forward the 
case to  3AF/CC for a final decision.  On  1 September 1994, the 
SJA, 3AF/JA conducted a legal review of the case.  The SJA did 
not concur with the 48FW/JA legal review and its recommendations; 
nor that of the 48FW/CC.  The package was not legally sufficient 
to  support the nonselection for  reenlistment.  The SJA offered 
the  following options  to  the  3AF/CC:  approve  the  appeal  and 
allow applicant to reenlist; deny the appeal; or return the case 
to the 48FW/CC for reconsideration based upon a recent EPR  with a 
'I 5 'I  rating  which  was  inconsistent  with  the  nonse1eG-t-ion 
recommendation.  On 6 September 1994, the appeal was approved by 
3AF/CC, MG J...A.. 
In a Memorandum for Record, dated 18 October 1994, the appellate 
authority for the Article  15, indicated that when applicant was 
.informed of the 3AF/CC's decision, he was told he was allowed to 
reenlist.  His  assignment  to  the  Security Police  Squadron was 
changed  to  Mission  Support  Squadron while  his  application  for 
retraining was being processed.  During this processing, it was 
noted that applicant was  ineligible to reenlist since he was  in 
grade E-3  in his second term of  enlistment.  Under the Date of 
Separation  (DOS) rollback program,  applicant  was  ineligible  to 
reenlist and therefore could not remain on active duty later than 
December 1994.  However, this information was not discovered at 
the time he appealed his reenlistment.  His appeal was processed 
and  decisions were  made  based  on  the  belief  that  he  would  be 
eligible to reenlist if his appeal was sustained by 3AF/CC.  The 
appellate  authority  further  indicated  that  while  he  was  still 
convinced  that  applicant's  punishment  was  appropriate,  unusual 
circumstafices  now  existed  which  caused  him  to  decide  that 
reduction  in  grade  should  be  set-aside. 
Therefore,  after 
reviewing all the information related to the nonrecommendation of 
reenlistment  appeal  and  the  decisions  made  in  good  faith,  he 
realized that applicant had been told he could reenlist.  In his 
opinion,  the  only  way  to  preserve  the  integrity  of  the 
nonrecommendation appeal process was  to  set aside the  reduction 
in grade so applicant could reenlist. 

AFBCMR  9 4 - 0 2 8 8 9  

On  14  December  1994,  applicant  reenlisted  in  the  Regular  Air 
Force, in the grade of E- 4,  for a period of two years and cross- 
trained into another career field. 

On  25  July  1995,  applicant's  permanent  decertification  was 
removed by order of the commander 50 Space Wing  (5OSW/CC). 
Applicant  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant  on 
1 November 1995. 
As  a result of  receiving a  referral  EPR  for  the period  ending 
21 August 1996, applicant was not selected for reenlistment.  The 
rater of  this EPR  stated in his comments, "Needs to  accept the 
responsibilities expected of a noncommissioned officer and  lead 
by example.--Solicited/coerced  subordinates to perform his duties 
for money,  was  caught  and  lied  to  cover track."  The  indorser 
stated,  "Lack  of  integrity-late  for  mandatory  training  and  in 
attempt to provide excuse, was caught in a lie.  Once  [applicant] 
decides to accept responsibility for his actions, he can become 
as asset to the unit." 
A  resume  of  the  applicant's  performance  reports  since  1991 
follows : 

PERIOD ENDING 

11 May 91 
23 Oct 91 
23 Oct 92 
*  23 Oct 93 
*  25 J u l   94 
21 Aug 95 
21 Aug 96 

*Contested reports 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

5 
5 
4 
3 (Referral) 
5 
5 
2  (Referral) 

Applicant was released from active duty on 13 December 1996 and 
transferred to the Reserve of the Air Force in the grade of staff 
sergeant, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, Completion of Required 
Active Service.  He served a total of 9 years, 11 months and 15 
days of active duty. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM, 
reviewed  the  application  and  states  that  in  response  to 
applicant's contentions, his commander had sufficient evidence to 
support his finding that applicant committed the offense alleged 
in the Article  15.  The  fact  that  a  discharge board  reached  a 
different conclusion does not impeach the Article 15.  Therefore, 
they recommend denial of the application. 

AFBCMR  94- 02889 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief,  Special  Activities,  AFPC/DPPAES,  reviewed  the 
application  regarding  his  reenlistment  eligibility  and  states 
that  the  Reenlistment  Section  determined  that  the  Selective 
Reenlistment  Program  action  was  inappropriate  and  instructed 
applicant's  military personnel flight to remove the AF Form  418 
from the record.  Further, they have determined that applicant's 
RE code when he separated on 13 December 1996 should reflect "41: 
Serving on Airman Control Roster according to AFR 35-32," versus 
"2X."  They have notified the appropriate office of the RE  code 
change and the record will be corrected. 
A complete copy o f   the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed the application and 
states  that  applicant's  requests  are  essentially an  effort  to 
modify his record to have it appear as if the Article 15 and any 
attendant consequences had never occurred.  They also note that 
applicant is asking for removal of all documents relating to the 
discharge action, since the discharge board  found in his favor. 
They  state  that  such a  request has  no  basis  in  reason.  Just 
because  an  administrative  proceeding  finds  in  favor  of  a 
respondent is no  reason to  remove all  indicia of its existence 
from his records.  The relief sought with regard to the EPRs and 
promotion  would  merit  consideration  only  if  the  underlying 
Article 15 action were removed from his records. 
Applicant's  argument that all mention of these records should be 
completely  erased  from  his  records  apparently  stems  from  his 
belief that the discharge board's  finding that he did not commit 
No one 
.the alleged act somehow absolves him from any wrongdoing. 
disagrees  that  the  discharge  board  was  not  persuaded  by  a 
preponderance of the evidence that  applicant committed the act. 
They do disagree on what the proper effect of such a finding is. 
The board's  finding does not mean that the underlying facts upon 
which  the allegations were based did not occur.  It only means 
that  the board did not believe the  evidence was  sufficient  for 
the  government  to  carry  its burden.  It  was  not  a  finding  of 
"factual innocence. 'I 
In  denying  applicant's  Request  for  Set  Aside  of  Nonjudicial 
Punishment,  his  commander  specifically  stated  that  he  had 
assessed the  alleged co-participant's  credibility and  concluded 
he was  telling the  truth.  The commander also  listed the other 
factors he  considered:  applicant's  entire military record, the 
AFOSI polygraph  failure, the AFOSI  report of  investigation, the 
AFOSI  serology  report,  and  the  results  of  both  administrative 
discharge boards.  Therefore, the serology report which applicant 
believes so significant was considered in denying his request to 
set  aside  the  Article  15  action.  Since  there  was  a  legally 
sufficient  factual  basis  for  taking  administrative  action,  the 
AFBCMR should not substitute its judgment for that of applicant's 
chain  of  command. 
The  standard  for  determining  whether  an 

7 

AFBCMR  94- 02889 

administrative decision is supported by  substantial evidence is 
not what  the AFBCMR  would  believe  on  a  de  novo  appraisal, but 
whether  the  administrative  determination  is  supported  by 
documented  facts and events in the records.  In their opinion, 
there is substantial, credible evidence in the record to legally 
support  the Article  15 action.  The  mere  fact  of  a  different 
conclusion on the ultimate issue in a subsequent administrative 
forum is of no consequence, particularly since different evidence 
was presented in each proceeding.  Had applicant demanded a trial 
by  court-martial,  it would  only  be  speculation to  conclude  he 
would have been acquitted, even with different evidentiary rules 
Counsel s 
and  a  higher  burden  of  proof  on  the  government. 
letter,  dated  21  June  1994,  indicates  that  applicant  made  an 
informed decision based upon a critical analysis of his situation 
and with the advice of counsel.  Therefore, they recommend denial 
of the relief sought by applicant. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. 
The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  the 
application with  respect to the EPRs.  They state that  they do 
not concur with applicant's contention that the 23 October 1993 
EPR was written by the wrong evaluator.  The rater on the report 
He 
states  he  was  directed  to  sign  the  EPR,  which  he  did. 
assigned  a  "5."  The  rating  was  downgraded  to  a  "3"  by  the 
It  is  not  within--the 
indorser,  and  referred  to  applicant. 
rater's  discretion to decide the  indorser's  rating or comments. 
Neither  the  indorser or the  reviewing commander is heard  from. 
Their  concurrence  with  the  rater  regarding  his  claims  is 
necessary  in  this  appeal. 
Applicant  has  failed  to  provide 
evidence proving the 23 October 93 EPR is factually inaccurate or 
.derived  from  injustice. 
It  is  logical  that  applicant's 
documented misconduct during the rating period would be reflected 
on the EPR. 
Applicant  provides  no  documentation  regarding  his  request  to 
change his grade on the 24 July 1994 EPR.  He was reduced to A1C 
on  30  June  1993, and  had  t o   serve  at  least  20 months  in that 
grade prior to being eligible for promotion to  sergeant.  It is 
only 13 months  from 30 June 1993 to  25 July  1994, so  applicant 
was not eligible for promotion to sergeant when the 25 July 1994 
EPR  was  closed  out.  They  are  provided  no  evidence  that  the 
24 July 1994 is factually inaccurate or the product of injustice. 
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's requests, 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit F. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  states  that, 
with  respect  to  the  opinions  from  AFPC/JA  and  AFLSA/JAJM,  in 
every letter it seems he  is guilty as charged for acceptance of 

8 

AFBCMR  94- 02889 

the Article  15 procedures;  secondly, he  is guilty because  of  a 
failure of the polygraph examination.  Both statements, according 
to  the  opinions, is an admission of guilt and  therefore denied 
his  request for  set-aside.  The  informed decision he  took  from 
his lawyer was that "Once the serology report comes back, it will 
prove your innocence, why go through with a court-martial?, let's 
be  done with  it and you will be back  at work  in no time."  He 
trusted his lawyers and did not have the money to fly a civilian 
lawyer over to England, I was stuck with them."  Further, when he 
asked  for  a  lawyer  during  the  OS1  questioning,  they  stopped 
questioning him.  He was never asked with whom he was  having  a 
relationship.  His  girlfriend wrote  a  l.etter stating that they 
had a heterosexual relationship.  It's true that he did not have 
an  excuse  for  not  reporting  the  incident  to  authorities. 
Embarrassment  is  not  an  excuse,  he  admits.  He  would  feel  it 
would be hard to believe, also; but that is the way it happened. 
He believes that if he had been at the other airman's  discharge 
board, a different outcome would have occurred.  The other airman 
was at his discharge board and the outcome was different. 
Regarding  the  EPR  opinion,  he  states  that  the  EPR  was 
manufactured to suit a purpose and that purpose is now a record. 
The record is wrong and so the EPR is wrong; the EPR is invalid 
and needs to be removed.  He objects to the author of the opinion 
including information about his  " 2 "   EPR, dated over three years 
after  the  incident  in  question.  He  has  made  mistakes  in--his 
career, and  took  the punishment without  question.  He  is not  a 
lawyer, nor does he  claim to be, he  is just one person and the 
only  expertise he  has  is  that  he  was  a  victim  in  this  entire 
situation.  He  is  only  one  person  against  a  mass  of  judges, 
juries, boards,  and  a  very  large  institution.  He  understands 
.that this would be a hard road to fight and accepts this and will 
press on with his daily life knowing the truth. 

Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit H. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting  partial  relief. 
After  thoroughly  reviewing  the 
evidence of record, we  are persuaded  that the  contested Article 
15  was  inconsistent  with  the  findings  of  the  Administrative 
Discharge Board  (ADB).  In most  situations, we would normally be 
persuaded  that  the commander was  in the best position to assess 
the  circumstances; however,  in  the  instant  case,  the  commander 
did not wait to consider the serology report which eliminated the 

9 

AFBCMR  94-02889 

other  airman  as  the  contributor to  the  staining on  the  tested 
material. 
Clearly,  the  commander  had  sufficient  evidence  to 
support  his  action  at  the  time  he  imposed  the  Article  15 
punishment.  However,  once  the  commander reviewed the  serology 
report and the results of the ADB,  we  do not understand why he 
refused to set aside the Article 15.  In our opinion, the benefit 
of the doubt should have been resolved in the applicant's  favor. 
Therefore, although the applicant is no longer on active duty, we 
believe  that  it  would  be  an  injustice  for  him  to  possibly 
continue  to  suffer  the  effects  of  what  is  maintained  in  his 
military  records  regarding  this  incident. 
In  view  of  the 
foregoing,  we  recommend  that  his  records  be  corrected  to  the 
extent  indicated below.  Applicant's  requests to be  considered 
for  retroactive promot.ion consideration  to  the  grade  of  staff 
sergeant  and  reinstatement  to  active  duty  are  duly  noted. 
However, after thoroughly reviewing his complete military record, 
noting his promotion to the grade of staff sergeant in 1995, and 
his separation in 1996, we are not persuaded that it would be in 
the best  interests of the Air  Force to provide him  any  further 
relief. 
Our  recommendations  are  solely  intended  to  clear 
applicant's record regarding this incident and in no way absolve 
him  from the misconduct  for which  he  was  eventually separated. 
We  do  not  condone  this  misconduct  and  while  applicant  is  not 
requesting the  referral EPR  closing  21 August  1996 be  removed 
from his  records, we wish  to make  it  absolutely clear  that we 
believe this report accurately reflected his performance during 
the time period. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 
a.  The punishment imposed on him under the provisions of Article 
15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 30 June 1993, be 
set  aside  and  expunged  from  his  records,  and  all  rights, 
privileges, and property of which he may have been deprived be 
restored. 
b.  Any  and  all  documentation  pertaining  to  his  permanent 
decertification from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), the 
withdrawal of his authority to bear firearms, and the issuance of 
temporary identification cards, be removed from his records. 
c.  The Enlisted Performance Report  (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered 
for  the  period  24 October  1992  through  23  October  1993,  be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

d.  AF  Form  418,  Selective  Reenlistment  Program  Consideration, 
dated 25 April  1994, and signed by Lieutenant Colonel Robert F. 
Byrd, be declared void and removed from his records. 

10 

AFBCMR  94- 02889 

dated  29  April  1994,  and  signed  by  Captain 
be declared void and removed from his record. 

f.  Block  3,  Grade, on  the  EPR,  AF  Form  910,  rendered  for  the 
period  24 October  1993  through  25  July  1994,  be  amended  to 
reflect "Sgt" vice "AlC. I' 

The following members of the Board considered this application in' 
Executive Session on 1 3  May 1998,  under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603: 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 

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

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 

DD Forms 149,  dated 22  Jun 94  and 5 Aug 96, 
w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 2 Jan 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPAES, dated 1 3   Feb 97. 
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 15 Apr 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPAB, dated 12 May 97. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 May 97. 
Applicant's Response, dated 2 1  May 97. 
AFOSI Report of Investigation, withheld. 

/'d+t+ 

VAUGH  E. SCHLUNZ 
Panel Chair 

11 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

JUL  - 11998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 94-02889 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 

be corrected to show that: 

a.  The punishment imposed on him under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), on 30 June 1993, be, and hereby is, set aside and expunged 
from his records, and all rights, privileges, and property of which he may have been deprived be 
restored. 

b.  Any and all documentation pertaining to his permanent decertification from the 

Personnel Reliability Program (PW), the withdrawal of his authority to bear firearms, and the- 
issuance of temporary identification cards, be, and hereby are, removed from his records. 

c.  The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), AF Form 910, rendered for the 

period 24 October 1992 through 23 October 1993, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed 
from his records. 

d. 
1994, and signed 
removed from his 

Program Consideration, dated 25 April 
be and hereby is, declared void and 

e.  The letter, dated 29 April 1994, and signed b 

and hereby is, declared void and removed from his record. 

f  Block 3, Grade, on the EPR, AF Form 9 10, rendered for the period 

24 October 1993 through 25 July 1994, be amended to reflect "Sgt" vice "AlC." 

Air Force Review Boards Agency