RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03522
INDEX CODE: 100.00, 131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be restored to his pre-court-martial primary, career, and duty Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC), “3P0X1” (law enforcement journeyman) as of 31
October 1997.
2. His rank be restored to staff sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has had difficulty in receiving an upgrade from a one level apprentice
in the information management career field. He also believes his records
to be in error regarding his grade because his appellate counsel raised an
issue regarding the judge’s instructions on forfeiture of pay before the
appellate courts.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 June 1987 for a period of
four (4) years.
On 26 January 1996, he was court-martialed by a general court martial for
larceny, theft of money. He was convicted of stealing $6,500 from the Army
Air Force Exchange Service. He pleaded guilty to the larceny and was
sentenced to reduction to the grade of airman basic, confinement for one
year, and to be discharged from the service with a bad conduct discharge.
He was selected for and completed the Air Force Return To Duty Program
(RTDP) (AFI 31-205, paragraph 54, Corrections Program). The RTDP is the
Secretarial implementation of 10 U.S.C. & 953 (Remission or suspension of
sentence; restoration to duty; retirement). He completed the program in
January 1997 and began a period of suspended punishment on 14 January 1997.
On 31 October 1997, applicant’s Air Force Special Code (AFSC) of “3P0X2”
was merged into “3P0X1.” The merged specialty title is “Security Forces”.
AFSC “3P0X2 is no longer a valid AFSC.
Qualification criteria for entry, award, and retention of “3P0X2” at that
time stated, “Never been convicted by a general, special, or summary courts-
martial.”
On 10 January 1998, applicant’s Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was remitted.
Applicant submitted an application to the AFBCMR requesting that he be
given a waiver of high year tenure (HYT) and to reenlist for six years to
acquire sufficient grade for continued military service (TAB 1).
On 12 February 1998, the AFBCMR granted applicant’s request and ordered
applicant’s records corrected to reflect that his high year of tenure had
been waived on 11 February 1998, and that the member reenlisted for four
years on 12 February 1998. The Board declined at that time to reinstate
applicant to the grade of E-5.
On 24 September 1998, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (USCAAF) did not
rule in the applicant’s favor. Both courts found that although the judge’s
instruction on forfeitures was not correct, the error had no effect on
applicant because he was past his expiration of term of service (ETS) and,
therefore, no longer entitled to pay while in confinement. The USCAAF
found an error in the execution, but not the imposition, of the portion of
the sentence relating to reduction in grade. That Court corrected the
reduction, and the applicant’s grade currently complies with both the
effective statutes and the sentence of the court-martial panel.
Applicant’s overall ratings on his APRs/EPRs were: 9,9, (new system),
4,5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,5.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, USAF Classification Branch, AFPC/DPPAC, reviewed this
application and states that qualification criteria for the merged AFSC
(3P0X1) contains the same entry, award, and retention standard of “never
been convicted by a general, special, or summary courts-martial.” In order
for applicant to enter AFSC “3P0X1, he must meet the current qualification
criteria for the specialty. Consequently, unless his court-martial
conviction is set aside as if it never happened, entry into the Security
Forces AFSC is not possible or appropriate.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application and
states that the applicant has not proven the existence of an error or
injustice relating to his removal from the security forces AFSC. However,
they are of the opinion that there has been an error in the handling of his
upgrade to 3-skill level in his current AFSC. Therefore, they recommend
the Board direct that he be sent to the appropriate 3-skill level school
for training. In regard to applicant’s request for restoration of grade,
he has not presented any new evidence warranting reconsideration of his
request. There has been no legal error or injustice relating to
applicant’s grade in this case. Therefore they recommend the application
for reconsideration be denied.
A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response, with
attachments, which is attached at Exhibit F.
Applicant provided additional documentation, which is attached at Exhibit
G.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting restoration of his
previous Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), “3P0X1” (law enforcement
journeyman), and for restoration of his grade to staff sergeant.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, absent more clear-cut,
substantial evidence, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in
and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rational
provided by the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate. Therefore, we find the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing the existence of
either an error or an injustice warranting favorable action on these
requests.
4. The comments and recommendations of the Office of the Staff Judge
Advocate are duly noted, however we have been advised by Air Force
officials at HQ ACC/DPAAR, Langley AFB, that applicant has successfully
completed 3-skill level schooling and should now be enrolled in 5-skill
level training. Therefore, no further action by this Board is required.
_________________________________________________________________
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 22 March 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 28 Jan 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 3 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Mar 99.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02532
If applicant is reawarded 3P0X1 as a secondary AFSC, he would receive supplemental promotion consideration in the 9A000 AFSC (retraining or pending retraining) beginning with cycle 03E5. Applicant requests his 3P051 AFSC be reinstated as a secondary AFSC and that his promotion to the rank of staff sergeant (SSgt) be effective the date of the 03E5 promotion cycle. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, indicates that the applicant will have sufficient time prior to his DOS to be promoted to A1C, provided he is otherwise eligible. A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), HQ APFC/JA, asserts that the purpose of suspending the applicant’s BCD for one year was to ensure that the rehabilitative programs of the RTDP were successful. After a thorough review of the evidence of...
Afterwards, he was informed that if he had chosen to extend for one month at his previous assignment until his formal retraining that he would have been scored in the AFSC 3P051. If he had been scored in the AFSC 3P051 he would have been promoted. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the documents provided by the applicant and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force.
The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt by the 00E6 promotion cycle. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 promotion cycle. Applicant’s disappointment is understandable but he has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence that he should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 cycle.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant has been advised through his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that he was not eligible to be promoted to airman until 11 February 1999, the day following the suspended discharge and will not be eligible for promotion to A1C until 11 December 1999 upon completion of the required 10 months (TIG) provided he...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01959
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01959 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 DECEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A771, Aircraft...
For this misconduct, he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 14 Aug 95. c. On or about 7 Aug 95, he failed to go to a mandatory appointment. A legal review was conducted by the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) who found the applicant’s file legally sufficient to support the commander’s recommendation that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force for Minor Disciplinary Infractions with a General discharge. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04756
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04756 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The following blocks on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 1 Jun 01 retirement be changed: 1. Recommend correcting the Security Forces AFSC and title for his DD Form 214, Block 11 to reflect "3P051, Security Forces Journeyman" vice "81150, Security...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01061
The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant response to the Air Force evaluations, with attachments, is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the...