ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02344
INDEX CODE: 100.00,128.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
xxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 15 September 1999, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request
for (1) he be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and permitted to
resign from the Air Force; and (2) the Air Force pay him $2,326.90. A
complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is attached
at attachment 1 with Exhibits A thru H.
In a letter dated 14 November 1999, applicant requests reconsideration. He
also requests that the Board remove a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) from his
record.
The applicant states that his first Palace Chase application was not in
July but in May 1997. The acting hospital commander refused to sign his
application on the grounds that he was a subject of a command directed
investigation. It was when the investigation concluded that he was allowed
to proceed with his application. He states that unlike his commanders, he
followed the letter of the law regarding truthful testimony and following
approved procedures. When his request for an early discharge was denied he
served his remaining time and received an honorable discharge.
On 1 April 1999, he received a letter from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
indicating that they had received adverse information from the Department
of the Air Force. He states that this letter was a direct retaliation for
filing an Inspector General (IG) complaint in which he was found to be
guilty of improper solicitation. He was prevented from consulting on
patients, subjected to a series of professional embarrassments and lost
considerable income because his colleagues referred fewer patients to him.
This was financially and professionally detrimental to his career. The
amount of money that he allegedly owes the Air Force pales in comparison to
the financial and professional damage that he suffered because of reckless
and egregious actions.
He states that he was promised that information regarding the LOA would
never be apart of his permanent record and that all records of it would be
removed after one year. The fact that the Inspector General was able to
locate these records after one year proves that the Air Force defaulted on
its original promise to him (Exhibit I).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting his release from his
Palace Chase contract and resignation from the Air Force; and the Air Force
pay him $2,326.90. After reviewing applicant’s prior submission and his
additional documentation, we are not persuaded that applicant’s records are
in error or unjust. On 8 May 1997, he signed a memorandum acknowledging
that he was subject to recoupment of a portion of his education assistance,
special pay or bonus money received. Applicant states that he signed the
application under duress and false pretenses. In a memo dated 28 October
1997, applicant requested an earlier date of separation (DOS); he stated
that “My flight commander, said that he could not permit two neurologists
from the same facility to separate at the same time. When he was informed
that the package should move forward, he asked if I would voluntarily
withdraw my package. I declined to do so.” The Palace Chase separation
complies with directives in effect at the time of his release. Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
2. Insufficient relevant evidence has also been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting removal of the
letter of admonishment (LOA) from his record. Applicant contends that he
was promised that documentation relating to the LOA would never be a part
of his permanent record. According to the Inspector General’s (IG) Record
of Investigation (ROI), applicant received an LOA on 4 June 1997.
According to the governing Air Force Instruction (AFI) and the Air Force
Manual (AFM), if a member receives an LOA, it is filed in the member’s
Personnel Information File (PIF). Once the member transfers or separates
from the Air Force, the PIF is either given to the individual or destroyed.
The Board notes that on 1 February 1998, the applicant transferred from
the Air Force to the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. In this respect, the
Board has no reason to believe that the LOA still exists and this is a moot
issue. 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 17 April 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 15 Sep 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Nov 99, w/atchs.
OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
Panel Chair
He be released from his PALACE CHASE contract and resignation from the Air Force. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and other documentation Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, PALACE CHASE, HQ AFPC/DPPRSR, reviewed this application and states that applicant denies knowledge of recoupment action prior to separation; however, on 8 May 1997, he signed a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant and counsel on 14 September 1998 for review and response. c. His request to receive Single Year Incentive Special Pay (ISP) in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 045A3, was approved by competent authority effective 1 October 1996. d. On 30 September 1997,...
His name had been removed from the CY94A promotion list by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) on 6 July 1996 for dereliction of duties in his attention to a sexual harassment complaint, inappropriate handling of the sexual harassment complaint, and failure to promptly correct the victim’s record to properly reflect her reasons for resigning from the Enlisted Club. Applicant was advised by letter dated 10 February 1995 that the commander of the Air Force , Air Education and...
His name had been removed from the CY94A promotion list by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) on 6 July 1996 for dereliction of duties in his attention to a sexual harassment complaint, inappropriate handling of the sexual harassment complaint, and failure to promptly correct the victim’s record to properly reflect her reasons for resigning from the Tyndall AFB Enlisted Club. Applicant was advised by letter dated 10 February 1995 that the commander of the 19th Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00567
His name had been removed from the CY94A promotion list by direction of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) on 6 July 1996 for dereliction of duties in his attention to a sexual harassment complaint, inappropriate handling of the sexual harassment complaint, and failure to promptly correct the victim’s record to properly reflect her reasons for resigning from the Tyndall AFB Enlisted Club. Applicant was advised by letter dated 10 February 1995 that the commander of the 19th Air Force...
The DoD/IG investigation stated that from July 1996 through September 1997, the applicant was placed in a “Failure to Comply” status for failing to meet Air Force dental standards four times. The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Military Justice, (AFRC/JAJ), reviewed the application and states that the LORs and demotion action complied with applicable regulations and the allegations contained therein are supported by...
On 9 September 1997, the applicant wrote to the 39th Wing IG alleging he had experienced reprisal by his squadron commander for giving a protected statement to an IG investigator during a separate IG investigation on 15 and 19 July 1997. The applicant alleged the squadron commander withheld a senior rater endorsement to [the EPR in question]. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05978
A copy of the complete Report of Investigation is at Exhibit B. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C, D, E, and F. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends the UIF and LOA not be removed from the applicants records. The applicants LOA and UIF are completely supported by the evidence.
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...