RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00218
INDEX CODE 126.04
XXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 31 July
1992, be removed 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
includes two supporting statements and is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of captain on 2
April 1998 with 9 years and 6 months of active service. Other than
the almost illegible copy of the Article 15 in question, the available
military personnel records do not refer to the incident or provide
additional details.
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 Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this appeal
and provides his rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and asks for relief on the basis
of fairness and justice.
His complete response is at Exhibit E.
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 the Article 15 should be removed from his records.
Applicant’s contentions and the supporting statements 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. Therefore, 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 16 December 1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 23 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Apr 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Apr 99.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) reviewed his condition on 13 Jul 88 and recommended he be returned to duty. A letter from the squadron section commander, dated 11 Jan 89, indicated that the applicant could not be used in his current AFSC with his medical problems and cross training was recommended. In a letter dated 24 Jan 91, the Chief, Physical Therapy, supported applicant's desire to be retained as an active duty member and cross trained to a less strenuous career field.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03050
The applicant states that changing his discharge would not exonerate him but will make the discharge more readily fit the crime. The applicant’s contentions are untimely, without merit and constitute neither error nor injustice and they recommend the Board deny the applicant relief. The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03050
The applicant states that changing his discharge would not exonerate him but will make the discharge more readily fit the crime. The applicant’s contentions are untimely, without merit and constitute neither error nor injustice and they recommend the Board deny the applicant relief. The JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02929
After considering all the matters presented, his commander determined that he committed one or more of the offenses alleged and imposed punishment on the applicant. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation provided in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded that he has suffered an injustice. After considering the matters raised by the applicant, the commander determined that the applicant had committed "one or more of the offenses...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02605
JAJM stated that on 13 Jun 96, the Air Force Court of Military Review (AFCMR) affirmed the court-martial findings and sentence of a bad conduct discharge. The applicant has already received an upgrade to her characterization of service. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02382 INDEX CODE 126.04 126.02 COUNSEL: Angela P. Rose HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 imposed on her on 17 Jan 01 be removed from her records and her grade of senior airman (SRA) be reinstated. On 8 Jan 01, the applicant was notified of her section commander's intent to impose nonjudicial...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02193
On 28 August 2002, the commander notified the applicant of his intent to impose nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for violating Article 86 (i.e., Absent Without Authority (AWOL)). We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation applicant submitted in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00960
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00960 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His court-martial conviction be overturned, his rank and retirement be restored, and his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to honorable. He did not live with his wife or provide support to her during the relevant time period. ...
Applicant's EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 6 Oct 95 3 * 6 Oct 96 3 * Contested report On 11 Aug 97, Applicant was notified that her commander was recommending she be discharged with service characterized as general for minor disciplinary infractions. As a result of the administrative discharge action on 11 Aug 97, the applicant was also ineligible for promotion. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant...