Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9700278
Original file (9700278.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  97-00278
            INDEX CODE:  126.04
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Two Article 15s imposed on him 2 December 1980  and  7  June  1983  be
expunged from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons applicant believes he has been  the  victim  of  an  error
and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is
at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s 17 January 1997 application was received  by  SAF/MIBR
and staffed to AFLSA/JAJM by SAF/MIBR on 14 February 1997. In  October
1997, it appeared that the case was lost  at  JAJM;  however,  it  was
relocated there in August 1998 and subsequently processed.

Relevant facts pertaining to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Associate Chief, Military Justice Division,  AFLSA/JAJM,  reviewed
this appeal, provided the available details  surrounding  the  Article
15s, and a discussion  of  the  applicant’s  administrative  discharge
board and its relevance on the Article 15s. The  author  provides  his
rationale for why the case should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF 55AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 14 September 1998 for review and comment 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.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded  the  two  Article  15s  in  question  should   be   voided.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by  the  Air  Force.  We
therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air  Force  and  adopt
the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice. In view of the above and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 June 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                 Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 97, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 20 Aug 98
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Sep 98.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00278

    Original file (BC-1997-00278.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. Relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900665

    Original file (9900665.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202173

    Original file (0202173.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    __________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The Article 15 specification alleged that on 14 Aug 93...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9700268

    Original file (9700268.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    They noted that while the investigation into the applicant's alleged dereliction of duty could have been more thorough, it nonetheless provided the commander with enough evidence to form the basis of his opinion. Additionally, the applicant could have refused to accept the Article 15 and demanded trial by court-martial or appealed his commander I s findings or punishment. After a thorough review of the evidence, the majority of the Board finds no persuasive evidence that the Article 15...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00256

    Original file (BC-1998-00256.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00256 INDEX CODE 136.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her time spent on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) [1 year, 5 months, 26 days] be credited towards her total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) for retirement purposes. Time spent on the TDRL is considered a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800256

    Original file (9800256.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00256 INDEX CODE 136.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her time spent on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) [1 year, 5 months, 26 days] be credited towards her total active federal military service date (TAFMSD) for retirement purposes. Time spent on the TDRL is considered a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02411

    Original file (BC-1997-02411.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02411 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: GEORGE E. DAY HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 23 Jul 96 and imposed on 26 Jul 96 be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9702411

    Original file (9702411.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02411 INDEX CODE: 126.04 COUNSEL: GEORGE E. DAY HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 initiated on 23 Jul 96 and imposed on 26 Jul 96 be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102114

    Original file (0102114.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ DFAS EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE reviewed the appeal and provided their rationale for recommending denial. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF DFAS EVALUATION: The applicant provided a response, contending that DFAS’ assertion that discharge ends any contractual relationship with the government regarding pay and entitlements is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9803230

    Original file (9803230.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A copy of a Summary Report of Inquiry prepared by HQ PACAF/JAC regarding applicant’s allegations that Senior Master Sergeant K is alleged to have caused applicant to receive punishment in forms of a letter of admonishment (LOA) and an Article 15 is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, Air Force Legal Services Agency, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and states that the...