RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03508
INDEX CODE 106.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His 1998 bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to general.
_________________________________________________________________
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:
On 27 May 1994, the applicant had applied and been approved for
retirement effective 1 November 1994. However, the Secretary of the
Air Force disapproved the application on 16 June 1998. Pursuant to
General Court-Martial Order No 63, dated 22 July 1998, the applicant
was discharged with a BCD in the grade of airman first class on
22 July 1998. He had 23 years, 10 months, and 5 days of active
service. The applicant’s performance reports reflect the highest
overall ratings possible under both the old and new rating systems
except for the last two reports, which have overall ratings of “4”
(new system).
The remaining 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 Deputy Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, describes the
circumstances of this case, to include the fact that the applicant,
for some unknown reason, unilaterally
withdrew his petition for review by the US Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces, thereby ending his appellate review. The Deputy Chief
provides his rationale for denying the instant appeal, to include his
contention that the applicant has not exhausted all other means of
obtaining redress.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 3 May 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
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 that his BCD should be upgraded. Applicant’s contentions are
duly noted; however, we do not find these 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. Therefore, absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought.
4. The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not have materially
added to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is
not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 26 October 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 9 Apr 99
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 May 99.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...
Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01581A
Counsel’s complete reconsideration request is at Exhibit H. The ROP did reflect the correct date (21 March 1994) of the meeting with the rater, additional rater, the applicant and his wife in the Statement of Facts section, and also indicated in the summary of the legal evaluation that the pertinent date used in the AFLSA/JAJM advisory (21 May 1994) was incorrect. The applicant claimed no unauthorized disclosure of confidential information during the original inquiry and presented no...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01574 INDEX CODE: 106.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice...
On 21 November 1955, applicant’s commander recommended he be discharged from the Air Force. They state that the lost time is properly recorded in his military records and on his DD Form 214 which reflected only three years, eight months, and six days of creditable service at the time of his discharge. Applicant, in response to the Board’s request, provided post-service documentation which is attached at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00278
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03506 INDEX CODE: 126 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) imposed on 11 December 1997, be set aside and his grade of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored. At any rate, the commander did not have the decision of the city attorney to consider...
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...