ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00398
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 29 July 1997, applicant submitted an application requesting that his
discharge be upgraded. On 19 November 1998, the Board considered and
denied his request. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is
attached at Exhibit E.
In a letter dated 8 January 1999, applicant requests reconsideration and
submits a copy of a court order for destruction of arrest records. In
addition, the applicant amended his request to include reinstating his
grade of E-4 and his GI Bill benefits. Applicant’s request, with
attachments, is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by the
applicant, we are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an
error or an injustice. While we are unaware of the circumstances
surrounding the court’s finding of not guilty regarding the charge of
driving under the influence (DUI), this does not obviate the applicant’s
pattern of misconduct displayed by the other offenses. In this respect, we
note the applicant was also arrested for speeding 80 mph in a 45 mph zone
and possessing an open container of alcoholic beverage in his car,
disobeying a direct order (resulting in an Article 15), issuing checks
totaling $600.00 which were returned for insufficient funds, and
incapacitation for duty due to alcohol intoxication (resulting in a Letter
of Reprimand). Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief 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.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 8 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
Mr. Walter J. Hosey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 27 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. DD Form 149, dated 8 Jan 99, w/atchs.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00398
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. In a letter dated 8 January 1999, applicant requests reconsideration and submits a copy of a court order for destruction of arrest records. _________________________________________________________________ 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;...
The applicant did not identify any specific errors in the discharge processing nor provide facts that warrant an upgrade of his discharge he received. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
It appears that the responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting the separation, and we do not find persuasive evidence that pertinent regulations were violated or that applicant was not afforded all the rights to which entitled at the time of discharge. Under our broader mandate and after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of applicant's case, the majority of the Board is persuaded the applicant has been a productive member of society. Applicant's...
In his 20 April 1998 appeal to the AFBCMR, the applicant requested his honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability discharge. Also provided was a statement from an individual who asserts he saw a drill instructor assault the applicant and “signed a police report on this matter in 1975 for the airforce police.” All of these letters, with their attachments, are at Exhibit I. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01124
In his 20 April 1998 appeal to the AFBCMR, the applicant requested his honorable discharge be changed to a medical disability discharge. Also provided was a statement from an individual who asserts he saw a drill instructor assault the applicant and “signed a police report on this matter in 1975 for the airforce police.” All of these letters, with their attachments, are at Exhibit I. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. The Chief, Physical Disability Division, HQ AFPC/DPPD,...
Complete copies of the cover letter and the Record of Proceedings are attached at Exhibit F. In letters dated 22 October and 3 December 1998, the applicant provided additional documentation and asked for an upgraded discharge with a corresponding RE code. We find no error or injustice regarding his general discharge and, since the discharge drove the applicant’s RE code, the “2B” he received is valid. Exhibit H. FBI Response.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00510
Complete copies of the cover letter and the Record of Proceedings are attached at Exhibit F. In letters dated 22 October and 3 December 1998, the applicant provided additional documentation and asked for an upgraded discharge with a corresponding RE code. We find no error or injustice regarding his general discharge and, since the discharge drove the applicant’s RE code, the “2B” he received is valid. Exhibit H. FBI Response.
The BCD reflects the applicant’s characterization of active duty service. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01057
The BCD reflects the applicant’s characterization of active duty service. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. Exhibit B.
However, his record as a 17 year old was never expunged. Pursuant to the Board’s request, a letter was sent to the applicant concerning submission of additional post-service evidence (Exhibit E). We therefore conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s request.