SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-02318
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason for separation be changed to end of term of service or another appropriate reason.
RESUME OF CASE:
On 2 Jun 99, the Board considered and denied the applicants original request to make the same corrections to his records. In the original request, the applicant contended his discharge was inequitable and improper and should be recharacterized as fully honorable and the narrative reason for his separation changed to reflect end of term of service or other appropriate reason as he was not guilty of drug abuse. The Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The applicant presented no evidence he was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, the Board found no basis to disturb the existing record. For a complete description of the facts and circumstances of the case and the Boards rationale for its original decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.
On 7 Aug 07, the Board denied the applicants 28 Dec 06 request for reconsideration (Exhibit G) as his submission did not meet the criteria for reconsideration in that he provided no new or relevant evidence in support of his request. The applicant was advised that reconsideration is authorized only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was submitted and that the reiteration of facts previously addressed by the Board, uncorroborated personal observations, or additional arguments of the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for reopening a case (Exhibit H).
On 15 Jun 09, the Board considered and denied the applicants second reconsideration request of his application for correction to his military records, dated 4 Dec 08 (Exhibit I). The application contained two New York Times articles on Air Force Flawed Drug Tests, dated 16 Sep 84, and 27 Jan 85. The Board examined the request and concluded that it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit J).
On 7 Feb 14, the applicant submitted his third request for reconsideration of his application for correction to his military records, and provided new information. The new information consists of character reference letters by the applicant, his sister, a former Air Force member now corporate executive, and a current Federal Bureau of Investigation report.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we remain unconvinced the applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice. As we previously determined, based on the available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. The applicant has provided no new evidence which would lead us to believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the offenses committed. In the interest of justice, we considered upgrading the discharge based on clemency; however, we do not find the evidence presented is sufficient to compel us to recommend granting the relief sought on that basis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
2. The applicants 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 DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1998-02318 in Executive Session on 27 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings (ROP), dated 2 Jun 99,
w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Dec 06.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Aug 07.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Dec 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit J. Letter, AFBCMR, dated, 15 Jun 09.
Exhibit K. DD Form 149, dated 7 Feb 14, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2002-01061-2
By letter, dated 6 Sep 05, the applicant requests reconsideration of his appeal. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J. Exhibit M. Letter, applicant, dated 23 Dec 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2002-00480A
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s requests and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with Exhibits, at Exhibit G. On 2 Mar 02, the applicant submitted an application to the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) requesting her general discharge be upgraded. AFPC/JA states the applicant is requesting the Board review the proceedings of the AFDRB. Even if the focus was on the incident that resulted in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2000-00012-3
The Second Addendum to the Record of Proceedings is at Exhibit W. In his most recent request for reconsideration, applicant contends he should not have been assigned to the Non-participating Ready Reserve Section (NNRPS) in January 1998. At the time he was assigned to NNRPS, he was and still is not qualified for worldwide duty in accordance with ARPC/SGPA memorandum dated 21 May 97. After careful consideration of the applicant's submission it is our opinion that the Air Force Reserve...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01169-2
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 18 May 06, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s above stated requests (Exhibit J). Prior to processing of the reconsideration, the applicant submitted an undated DD Form 149 with an attachment, dated 8 Oct 06, requesting reconsideration of his case and providing additional evidence (Exhibit L). Therefore, the request for a hearing is again not favorably...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01421-2
Even if the applicable statute and regulations required minority membership on his promotion board (which they do not), an African-American did sit as a voting member of his promotion board. The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I. AFGOMO recommends the applicant’s request be denied. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-02808
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP indicates that after review of the referral report, they are advising the Board to remove the comment "During this period, MSgt P--- was given 24 months hard labor, a reduction in grade for reviewing child pornography." A complete copy of the AFLOA/JAJM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2009-03818-2
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 26 Oct 10, a similar appeal was considered by the Board where the applicant requested two referral reports, closing 4 Dec 07, and 8 Jul 08, and a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 14 Feb 08, be removed from her record and her record was corrected to reflect the following: a. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 02405 2
The entry in his official medical records, dated 20 Sep 65, stating his headaches were relieved by proper eyeglasses in 1965 be changed to read Headaches from Dec 1961 to 1 Oct 65. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicants original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. On 3 Jun 10, the Board notified the applicant that a subsequent, undated, request for reconsideration by the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 88-02168A
A complete copy of the DPMAJA evaluation is at Exhibit L. The Officer Appointment/Selective Continuation Section, AFMPC/DPPPOC, reviewed the submissions and recommended denial of the applicant's request that a statement be placed in his OSR reflecting he was not eligible for the CY86 Regular Air Force (RegAF) Appointment Board. A complete copy of the DPPPOC evaluation is at Exhibit M. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00137
When he questioned his supervisor about his performance rating, he was told he would receive a five rating. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Mar 09 for review and comment within 30 days. In addition, we note the feedback worksheet provided by the applicant supports the rating he received.