. 

, 

SECOND ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

MAR 

I  9 1999 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE  MATTER  OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

95-00443 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

RESUME OF CASE: 

On 3 December 1996, the Board reconsidered and denied applicant's 
requests  that  his  records  be  corrected  to  show  that  he  was 
upgraded in Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC) 30332; all derogatory 
and  incriminating evidence be  removed  from  his  records;  he  be 
given the promotions he  missed  with back  pay;  his discharge be 
set aside; and he be reinstated to active duty.  A complete copy 
of  the Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit 
H. 
In an application, dated 11 November 1997, the applicant provided 
additional  documentation  and  requested  reconsideration  of  his 
application.  In addition, the applicant amended his requests to 
include award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal  (AFGCM) for the 
period  5  September  1962  through  4  September  1965. 
The 
applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit I. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Associate  Chief,  Military  Justice  Division,  AFLSA/JAJM 
reviewed this application and states that they have reconsidered 
their 3  April  1995  memorandum  to the Board  in the  case wherein 
they opined  that  although the two Article  15s do not  appear in 
the applicant's records, he needed to do more than boldly assert 
he  did  not  receive  them.  They  now  feel  that  the  dearth  of 
evidence in the file that the applicant ever received two Article 
15s in 1963  does warrant  redacting all references to them.  In 
addition,  since  the  applicant's  records  do  contain  the  1956 
Article  15 which he  is no longer contesting, the presumption of 
regularity would have it that any other Article 15s the applicant 
received would  be  present  also.  Therefore, they  recommend  the 
board redact all references to the two 1963 Article 15s from his 
records.  However,  since  his  discharge  was  not  based  on  these 
Article  15s,  their removal should not affect the legality of his 
discharge. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit K. 

. 

The  Recognition  Programs  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPRA,  reviewed  this 
application  and  states  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to 
substantiate his claim that he deserves the AFGCM.  Although the 
applicant  bases  most  of  his  allegations  and  accusations  of 
prejudice and unfairness on his last tour at Mt. Hebo, his Airman 
Performance Reports (APRs) for his tour on Okinawa clearly show a 
pattern of indifferent attitude toward his training, his job,  and 
the Air Force,  Therefore, they recommend denial of his request 
for award of the AFGCM, 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit L. 
The  Superintendent,  USAF  Education  &  Training,  AFPC/DPPAT, 
reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  although  training 
indicators represent a significant part of the discharge package, 
the primary basis was unsuitability.  The withdrawal action was 
based  on  solid  training  indicators over  an  extended  period  of 
time, not  because  he  was  rotating to  the United  States.  The 
documents and narratives provided by  the applicant appear to be 
anecdotal and represent isolated incidents,  The documents in the 
discharge package and in the military record establish behavioral 
trends  and  support  the  discharge  action. 
Therefore,  they 
recommend denial of his requests. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit M. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
he is requesting voidance of the 1956 Article 15 since he was not 
provided 72 hours to respond.  In addition, he was never provided 
legal counsel and provided only one hour to respond. 

In regard to the basis for his discharge, the applicant contends 
that  since he  completed his  Career Development Course  for AFSC 
30332  and  completed  On-the-Job-Training  (OJT) and  passed  the 
Specialty Knowledge Test  (SKT), the basis should be negated.  He 
believes that false and misleading  information presented to the 
discharge board was used to have him discharged. 

The  applicant's  complete  responses,  with  attachments,  are 
attached at Exhibits 0 through T. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1. Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
After  thoroughly 
warrant  voiding  the  two  1963  Article  15s. 

2 

. 

reviewing the additional documentation and noting the applicant's 
contentions, we believe  that a preponderance of the evidence of' 
record  raises  doubt  as  to  whether  or  not  the  applicant  ever 
received  two  Article  15s  in  1963. 
We  note  the  applicant's 
records contain the Article 15 he received in 1956 and given the 
presumption  of  regularity  any  other  Article  15s  the  applicant 
received should also be present.  In view of this and since there 
are  no  Article  15s  from  1963  in  the  applicant's  records,  we 
believe that equity dictates that any doubt should be decided in 
the  applicant's  behalf.  Therefore, we  recommend his  records be 
corrected  to  the  extent  indicated below.  It  should be  noted, 
however, that the primary basis for the applicant's  discharge was 
unsuitability, not the 1963 Article 15s.  As such, their removal 
should in no way be viewed as a determination by this Board that 
the applicant's discharge was in error or unjust. 

2. Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  inj-ustice 
regarding  the  remainder  of  applicant's  requests. 
In  this 
respect, we note the following: 

a.  The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  to  warrant 
removal  of  the  1956  Article  15.  He  contends that  he  was  not 
provided  72  hours  to  respond  to  the  Article  15;  however,  he 
provides no corroborative evidence in support of this contention. 
To  the  contrary,  the  evidence  of  record  indicates  that  the 
applicant did  not  request trial by  court-martial and  agreed  to 
accept the nonjudicial punishment. 

b.  The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he 
should  be  awarded  the  AFGCM  for  the  period  5 September  1962 
through 4 September 1965.  He  contends that he  was  not  awarded 
the AFGCM due to prejudice and unfairness; however, he has also 
failed  to  provide  corroborative  evidence  in  support  of  this 
contention.  In  addition,  the  applicant's  performance  reports 
rendered during his tour at Okinawa indicate that he displayed a 
pattern of indifferent attitude toward his training, his job, and 
the Air Force during the period in question.  These factors could 
have  contributed  to  the  decision  to  not  recommend him  for  the 
medal in question. 

c.  The applicant completed his OJT and passed the SKT,  but 
there  is  no  evidence  his  supervisor  ever  recommended  him  for 
upgrade  to  the  five  skill  level  in  AFSC  30332. 
Since  the 
supervisor's recommendation is required prior to upgrading skill 
levels,  in  the  absence  of  such  evidence, we  find  no  basis  to 
warrant  correcting the  applicant's  records to  show that  he  was 
upgraded to the five skill level in AFSC 30332. 

d.  The evidence of record indicates that discharge action 
was  taken  against  the  applicant  because  he  was  unwilling  or 
unable  to  apply  himself  to  the  training  programs  which  were 
offered to him.  In addition, his indifferent attitude during 11 
years of active service prevented  him  from advancing beyond  the 

3 

grade of airman second class, apprentice skill level.  Therefore, 
we  find  no basis  to  recommend  favorable consideration of  that 
portion  of  his  request  for  a  change  in  the  character  of  his 
discharge. 

e.  In  view  of  our  determination  that  the  applicant's 
discharge  was  not  in  error  or  unjust,  we  find  no  basis  to 
recommend favorable consideration of his request for retroactive 
promotions and reinstatement to active duty. 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  any  and  all 
documents and references to two (2) nonjudicial punishments under 
Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, imposed in 1963, 
be declared void and removed from his records. 

- 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 2 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair 
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote) 

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

-

-

 

.

w/atchs. 

Addendum to Record of Proceedings, 
DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 11 Nov 97,  w/atchs. 

Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Jan 9 8 .  
~ -
Exhibit K.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 Mar 9 8 .  
Exhibit L.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 7  Apr 98,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit M.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAT, dated 1 7  Apr 98. 
Exhibit N.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Apr 98. 
Exhibit 0. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit P.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit Q.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit R.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit S.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 May 98. 
Exhibit T.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 7   Jun 98. 

OSCAR A. GOLDFARB 
Panel Chair 

4 

j?' 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 95-00443 

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 to 
orrected to show that any and all documents and refer 

ts under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, imposed in 

1963, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency