8
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
4
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02433
COUNSEL: RONALD P. KELLER
__
HEARING DESIRED: YES
4
-
AUb 2 1 1 8 ~ 8
-
>L
.-
Applicant requests that the Dropped from the Rolls .(DFR) action
be rescinded and he be retired in the grade of lieutenant
colonel. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C) . The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D) .
As of this date, no response has been received by this office.
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. The facts and
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based on
the evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which
entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or
appropriate standards were not applied, we find no basis to
disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
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 staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Mr. Joseph G. Diamond,
and Mr. Henry Romo, Jr. considered this application on 11 Aug 98
in accordance with the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
DOUGLAS J. HEADY
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D. SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
.
D E P A R T M E N T O F THE A I R F O R C E
H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR DPPRR
AFPC/JA
AFBCMR
IN TURN
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
APR 1 6 I998
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
The applicant, while serving in the grade of lieutenant colonel, was dropped from the rolls
(DFR) of the United States Air Force as a regular commissioned office effective 24 Feb 97 in
accordance with AFI 36-3207 (by direction of the President). He had served on active duty for
over 22 years.
Reauested Action. The applicant is requesting that his DFR action be rescinded and that he be
allowed to retire as a Lieutenant Colonel.
Basis for Request. Applicant alleges several errors regarding the processing of his DFR action.
We defer to AFPCDPPRR for discussion of the retirement issues. This advisory will address
only the DFR action in the case.
Facts. By authority of USC 10, Section 1161, the President directed applicant be dropped
from the rolls effective 27 Feb 97, as a result of his plea of guilty to two counts Gross Sexual
Imposition with a Person Under 13; one count of Attempted Rape with a Person Under 13; and
two counts of Sexual Battery. Applicant was sentenced to a minimum of between seven years
and a maximum of fifteen years confinement. After serving seven months, the applicant was
paroled under a “super shock” probation program.
Discussion. Action to drop the applicant fiom the rolls of the Air Force was properly initiated
by the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer. The commander
had an option to either initiate administrative discharge action against the officer or recommend
he be dropped from the rolls of the Air Force. Applicant, being service retirement eligible,
submitted an application for retirement in lieu of administrative action, and the case was
processed as a dual action case through channels to the Air Force Personnel Council. On 24 Feb
97, the Secretary of the Air Force ordered, that by direction of the President, applicant be
dropped from the rolls of the Air Force. The action complied with directives in effect at the time it
was taken. The case has been reviewed for processing and there are no errors or irregularities
causing an injustice to the applicant. From documents present in applicant’s master personnel
record, it is apparent that a legal review of all actions was conducted and his case was found to be
legally sufficient prior to it being forwarded for a decision. Further, the issues raised in this
application were all raised in some form during the processing of the original actions, and were
discussed in the legal reviews at that time. There are no new issues raised in this current
application.
.
‘ ’
. e
,2
.
Recommendation. Denial. Due to the fact the applicant had more than 20 years active
service, the action to DFR was processed as a “dual action” case so that consideration of his
request to be retained would be made at the time that the decision pertaining to DFR was made.
He has filed a timely request.
D#vn> E. EDWARDS, Lt Col, USAF
Chief, Separations Branch
Dir, Personnel Programs Management
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02443 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: RONALD P. KELLER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Dropped from the Rolls (DFR) action be rescinded and he be retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel. On 11 Aug 98, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AUG 1 9 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03481 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO Applicant requests that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 4M be changed, and, that he be advised as to the meaning of his narrative reason for separation of "Defective Enlistment Agreement." The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's requests and provided advisory opinions to the Board (Exhibit D). The applicant is...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). 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. The records indicate member’s military service was reviewed and appropriate action was taken.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit B). Applicant states he understood he would be on convalescent leave during this time. Applicant was on leave en route between assignment from Leave history shows 8 days charged leave 1 Jun - 8 Jun AFB to days c o n s n t leave 14 - 20 Jun 97, and 39 days charged leave 21 Jun - 29 Jul AFB hospital on 9 Jun due to acute low back 97.
The appropriate Air Force off ice evaluated applicant I s request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C) . The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). .” Another states “I know that I can reenlist rather than extend, but I have elected to execute this extension instead of reenlisting.” Both of these statements clearly indicate the applicant was aware of the reenlistment options.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that his senior rater provided a statement indicating the original PRF was in error and subsequently needed to be replaced with a new PRF correcting all the errors. He requests that the Board order the replacement of his original PRF with the reaccomplished PRF, as supported by his former senior rater and MLR president; and, direct promotion to lieutenant colonel as if selected by the CY96...
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...
Funds allotted for payment of air mechanics are continued i n force u n t i l authorization for increased grades is received and conversion made i n compliance w i t h instructions above mechanics ratings t o noncommissioned grades is based on the fund8 allotted In t o the Air Corps f o r air mechanics grades within t h e present fiscal year. SUBJECT: TO : ,Appointment of' Air Mechanics t o Grades' Cammanding Generals, Army Air Forces, Army Ground Forces, Services of Supply, Armies, Army...
f o r a 31TY move from The accessorial charge The appllcart is :--c+- -.ls - 7 i 37-,217 45 ILTT stated that after a thorough review of the records, they can find no evidence of miscounseling or an error on the part of the Thus, ILTT recommended the application be denied Government. After a t h o r o u g h review of the evidence of record and applicant s submission, we are unpersuaded that he should be reimbursed additional expenses for moving his sailboat. Diamond, Member Mr. Henry RGmG...
Applicact's s u b x i s s i o ~ is at Exhibit Ti. The appropriate Air Force off;re evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory o p i n i o r . Appiicant's resporse to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. l2ursuar.t ts the 2 o a r d ' s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigatlon, Washington, D .