c
,
i
IN THE MATTER OF: -- DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01440
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
COUNSEL: NONE
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
JUL 2 11998
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be upgraded to honorable.
~~
~
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He chose to say he was a homosexual to get a discharge.
Unfortunately he did not realize that it carried a negative
discharge with it.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 16 October 1967, the applicant enlisted in the CA ANG-ResAF in
the grade of airman basic for a period of six years.
The applicant was notified by his commander on 12 June 1970 that
discharge action has- been initiated against him under chapter 2,
section H, AFM 39-12, Homosexuality, Class 11. The commander
further advised the applicant that if court-martial action is
neither applicable nor deemed appropriate i n his case, he (the
commander) is recommending that he be administratively discharged
and issued an undesirable discharge. Applicant was advised that
military counsel had been obtained to assist him, or he had the
right to employ civilian counsel if he so desired, and the right
to submit statements in his own behalf.
The applicant did
consult counsel, did submit statements in his own behalf, but
waived his right to a hearing before an administrative discharge
board. Records indicate that on 1 August 1970, the applicant, in
the grade of sergeant, received an undesirable discharge.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Washington, D.C., indicated on the basis of the
data furnished they were unable to locate an arrest record.
.
*
P-
#
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
97- 01440
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/MPPU, reviewed the application and
states that they reviewed the applicant's request for upgrade of
discharge
discharge
characterization not be upgraded.
applicant' s
and
recommend
the
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 19 Jan 98 for review and response within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
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, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
3 .
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that
applicant's discharge should be upgraded. By his own statement,
the applicant admits to saying that he was homosexual in order to
be discharged from military service. This admission, had it been
known to the commander on 12 June 1970, would likely have
resulted in a similar type discharge. In view of the above and
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the religf sought in this
application.
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.
2
97- 01440
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 14 May 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Ms.
Mr .
Dr.
Ms.
Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
A.
B.
m L .
D.
E.
DD Form 149, dated 27 May 97.
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
FBI Report.
Letter, ANG/MPPU, dated 10 Dec 97, w/atchs.
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Jan 98.
L x . w
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
U
Panel Chair
3
If it was known that he had prostate cancer but only later that it was determined to be in the LOD, they would conclude that he was retroactively entitled to the benefit of extension on AD. The Air Force also states that in their opinion, the applicant’s eligibility for benefits based on prostate cancer commenced only on 22 August 1994, when bony metastases and prostate cancer were diagnosed, and the benefit he would have been entitled to at that time was incapacitation pay. ...
AFPC/JA states that THC marijuana has a half-life in urine samples. Therefore, they do not feel that the Legal Advisor's refusal to instruct the board on the discharge characterization options constitute reversible error, A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICAN TIS RE VIEW OF AIR FORCE E VALUATIO8: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and indicated that he disagrees with their findings. While the applicant believes his rights to due process...
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. undesirable discharge be upgraded to The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant’s commander recommended involuntary discharge be taken against the applicant for admitted homosexuality. The case was processed to the discharge authority and on 17 Oct 55 the discharge authority directed the applicant be discharge with an...
If the Board grants the request, the cost of premiums should be deducted from payments. He provided documentation that clearly indicates the Ready Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Program was established by Congress to provide coverage for Reservists who have been issued an order to involuntary active duty for covered service under the authority of Title 10, USC, Section 12304. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
On 3 January 1992, the Director of Personnel notified applicant that because of her inability to meet her recruiting goals, he was recommending her recruiting tour be terminated for substandard duty performance under the provisions of ANGR 35-03, para 6-5c(4). On 20 March 1992, The Adjutant General notified applicant that after a thorough review of the investigating officer's report and applicant's recommendation for involuntary separation from Full-Time National Guard Duty for substandard...
Available documentation indicates that he was appointed a second lieutenant, Air National Guard and Reserve of the Air Force on . A National Guard Bureau Office of Inspector General (NGB-IG) investigation was conducted on and concerning the following allegations (Exhibit C). He was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's responses to the advisory opinion are at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Available Master Personnel Records C. Advisory Opinion D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory...
By letter, dated 2 Nov 96, the applicant was notified that since she had been twice considered and not recommended for promotion, the law required that her active status as an officer in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force be terminated not later than 15 Nov 96. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Promotions Branch,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02137
By letter, dated 2 Nov 96, the applicant was notified that since she had been twice considered and not recommended for promotion, the law required that her active status as an officer in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force be terminated not later than 15 Nov 96. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Promotions Branch,...
On 28 May 93, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of ANG Regulation (ANGR) 36-05 (Misconduct) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of major. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel for the applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided an 8-page rebuttal letter disagreeing with the advisory opinion (see Exhibit E) . The Board should be informed that case was appealed and 4 AFBCMR 96-00558 ANG.