Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702842
Original file (9702842.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
A I R   FORCE  BOARD  FOR  CORRECTION  O F   M I L I T A R Y   RECORDS 

RECORD  O F   PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  2  2  8% 

I N   THE  MATTER  O F :  

ZCZKET  NUMBER: 

97--02842 

CO2JNSEL: 

NONE 

i i E A R I N G   DESIRED: 

PJO 

-________. 

APPLICANT  REOUESTS  THAT: 

r e s u l t   sf 
H i s   A c t i v e   Cluty  S e r v i c e   Commitment 
h i s   c o m p l e t i n g   t h e   T- 38  Pilot X n s t r u c t o r   T r a i n i n g   ( P I T )   be  d e l e t e d .  

IADSC)  x c u r r e d   a s   a 

A P P L I C A N T   CONTENDS  THAT: 

When 
c o u n s e l e d   o n   t h e   3 6 - m o n t h   c o m m i t m x t .  

h e   w a s   n o t i f i e d   o f  

h i s  

,zxz-rent 

c i s s i g n m e n t ,  

h e   was 

n o t  

A p p l i c a n t ’ s   s t a t e m e n t   a n d   d o c u m e n t c r ; ,   e v i d e n c e   submytted  i n   supp:ort 
i n c l u d e d   a s   E x h i b i t   A  with  A t t a c h m e n t s   1 
o f   h i s   application  a r e  
t h r c u g n   E .  

STATEMENT  3 F  FACTS: 

A p p l i c a n t   c o m p l e t e d   T-38  P I T   c;t- 
J.?B 
i n c u r r i n g   a  t h r e e - y e a r   ADSC  of  L9 :.‘z.,rch  1995. 

on  20  Plarcrl  1 9 9 6 ,  

A I R   FORCE  EVALUATION: 

of 

t n e   ADSC. 

t h e  
r a t h e r ,   h e   c i t e s   sirrLpl17 tL?e  l a c k   cf  d o c m e r t a t ; o n   of  his 

HQ  A F P C / T ) P P R S   e x p l a i n s   t h e   r e a s o n ?  
estcklisknent  of  A D S C s  
f l y i n g   t r a i n i n g   a n d   r e c o m m e n a s   t n a t   --he  app-icztlon  ~e  g e n i e a .  
i s   i n d i c a t e c i   t h a t   a p p l i c a n t   3 0 ~ s  :’:ST  ciain  “ n o    i n i n g  the Air  Force 
to provide  counseling 

- r  

I f  

~ 

d.  In  interDretinq  this  z c 1 i r s   d e c i s l c i T ,   A F ? ( ' / J G ,   nas  s c ; l t e a  

that  the  decision  must  be  f o L c m e 2   gn-y  in  + n e   district  where  :E 
was  rendered.  Moreover,  this  c c , r t   decisian  A s  n c t   Dind;ng  an  ;is 
ir,  any manner.  Nevertheless, in  their view,  the  c a s e   may  b e   cited 
as  persuasive  authoriry  ithht  i L 3 ,   the  recison;na 
1s  sounc  and 
emanates  fron  a  distinguishea  redera1  x i i r t )  
f o r   two  basic 
propositions: 

( 1 )   Pxrsuant  to  AFR  36-51/Li,FI  36-2-. : - ,   tht;  absence  cf  an 
t h c '   absence  ~f  evidence  o,t  A C S C  

Air  Force  Form  63  and  e v e n  
counseling do not compel  t h e   invaiidation of  2:  4DS'. 

{:2)  Evidence  chat  an  o f f ; c e r  

benefiTn2  :rf:rti 

acted unreasonably  ir. tailinq  EO  inTiestigate 
are valid  reasons for denial of  an A C S C   appedl. 

c r a i r , i n q   anu 

L e n g t h   of his ADS(: 

in deference  to the  opinion  31  t h e   S t a f f   J u J q -   P C ~ J  :ate,  ~ F F I : ,  
t h e  
legal  r i q h t   tc  'kle  relief Deing 
applicant does not appear to have  ;I 
of  ~ ' r z p e r   zounsellng  by 
sought  notwithstanding  the  abseIi.cct 
responsible  Air  Force  Off icia- s.  Xcwever,  S L Y  CP  i ~ ~ ~ c -  z r e   emFowered 

to  recommend  relief  based  on  our  perception  of  an  injustice,  the 
lack of a legal entitlement  is n o t   dispositive of the merits  of the 
applicant's  case. 

4.  Applicant's  contentions  are  du-y  noted. 
However,  we  do  not 
find  his  uncorroborated  contentions,  in  and  by  themselves, 
sufficiently compelling to conclude that he unwittingly  incurred an 
ADSC  for  training  he would  not  have  accepted  had  he  been  aware  of 
the ADSC  prior  to entering  the training.  Therefore,  we  agree with 
the recommendation  of  the Air  Force and adopt its rationale  as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  sustain 
his  burden  of  establishlng  the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an 
rnjustice. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  tne  evidence  presentec  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence of probable material  error  or  irqustlce; 
that  the appiicatior-1 was  deniea  16::~hout  a personal  appearance;  ana 
that  the  application will  only be  reconsidered  upon  the submission 
of  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  not  considered  with  this 
application. 

The  following members  of  the  Ejoara  considered  this  application  in 
Executive  Session  on  26  Jur-e  1 5 3 E   under  the  prIvlsions  of  AFT 
36-2603: 

Mr, LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel C h a i r  
M r '  Benedict A .  Kausal  I I T r  :.:errher 
M Y .   David M ,   Mklq,rewp  Mernner 

The following documentary e v i d e x e  ihias  considezea: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, aatec 20 Sep 97, w/atcns. 
Exhibit  B.  Applicant's MasteT-  - tiersonnei Records. 
Exhibit C.  Lett?z-, AFPC,'3PPRS,  dated 23 Apr  98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MiEX, dated 18 May  98. 
Exhibit E ,   Letter, Applizant, Jcdated. 

vQ57L 

LEROY  T. BASEMAN 
Panel Chair 

&&~'A4----- 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801620

    Original file (9801620.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not made aware of nor did he acknowledge acceptance of the three-year ADSC for completion of Initial Qualification Training (IQT) in the C-9. While documentation of the officer's awareness of the ADSC provides ironclad proof the counseling was accomplished in a timely manner and the officer voluntarily accepted the ADSC, it is not the documentation of counseling that establishes the ADSC, but rather the completion of the ADSC- incurring event (in this case,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800697

    Original file (9800697.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    1 s i ., I Office of the Assistant Secretary \1 BC'JlR 98-00007 AIR FORCE BOLL-RD FOP- C O k A ? wclu:d bz a u t h o r i z e d to r e t u r n t o Germany 111 a rwpoi-a:-y d u t y (TDY) s t ; i t u s t o complete z s h i p his EX-*' and HHGs to h i s new d u t y n e c e s s a r y He was a d v i s e d t h a t k I?-auld n o t be s t a t i o n k F Z i . 3 J and H H G s LC h i s new d u t y n e c e s s a r l r a c t i o n s A F B ) aiic -,&:as a d v i s e d t h a t h e would n o t be s t a t l...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01368

    Original file (BC 2013 01368.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01295-99

    Original file (01295-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    c o u r t - m a r t i a l c o n v i c t i o n a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l p e n a l t i e s o f a p u n i t i v e d i s c h a r g e a n d c o n f i n e m e n t a t h a r d l a b o r . Y o u w e r e d i s c h a r g e d o n 2 0 A u g u s t 1 9 7 4 . 1 9 9 9 .

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1998 | 06956-98

    Original file (06956-98.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY . Y o u a r e a d v i s e d t h a t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e c a s e w i l l b e g r a n t e d o n l y u p o n t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f n e w a n d m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e n o t p r e v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e B o a r d a n d t h e n , o n l y u p o n t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e B o a r d a n d a p p r o v a l b y t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY RECORDS 18 1. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702969

    Original file (9702969.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After careful of applicant’s zsquest and the available evidence csrsid3ra:icn sf z z c a r d , -;;z find no evidence :hat the applicant’s d i s c k z r g e :hias A7c7,” 2°F L , afz3.f ~s-~siaering the facts zxd circumstances l e a d i r i g zz z r ~ e a p ~ l i z z r - : ’ s separation and -:-Fw of the fact t k L a t , ~::z;e: c u r r e r , t standards, the applica:? iliamond, Member Ms. Sophie A. \:;ark, Mernber F i l l members v o t e d to correct the records, as recommended.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01251-99

    Original file (01251-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    s h i p ' s m o v e m e n t o n t w o o c c a s i o n s , m i s s i n g m u s t e r s a n d d i s o b e d i e n c e . B a s e d o n t h e f o r e g o i n g r e c o r d y o u w e r e p r o c e s s e d f o r a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c h a r g e . O n 6 M a r c h 1 9 7 9 y o u a g r e e d t o w a i v e y o u r r i g h t t o a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i s c h a r g e b o a r d i n e x c h a n g e f o r a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f o r a g e n e r a l d i s c h a r g e .

  • AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00034

    Original file (FD01-00034.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    4 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-01-00034 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Records review revealed that the applicant received an Article 15 for wronghlly using marijuana on or about April 30, 1985 and a second Article 15 for failure to obey a lawhl order while in correctional custody. Today I have prescribe medication Also, there is a letter from my therapist Dr. ------ Please - ATCH 1.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 01670-99

    Original file (01670-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    ; h e B o a r d f i n d s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n f o l l o w i n g c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n . a n d e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t o f t h e i n j u s t i c e w a r r a n t i n g t h e ( Z ) , P e t i t i o n e r O s a p p l i c a t i o n h a s c o m m e n t e d t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e r e q u e s t h a s m e r i t a n d w a r r a n t s f a v o r a b l e a c t i o n . ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 00513-99

    Original file (00513-99.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD ( 2 ) , t h e B o a r d f i n d s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n f o l l o w i n g c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n . ...