RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01382
Index Code: A70.00
COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION
HEARING: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation, “Request for Discharge in Lieu of
Trial by Court-Martial” be changed and that his “Under Other Than
Honorable Conditions” (UOTHC) character of service be upgraded to
honorable.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, D.C., indicated that on the basis of the data furnished
they were unable to locate an arrest record (Exhibit C).
Additionally, pursuant to the Board’s request, the Air Force Office of
Special Investigation (AFOSI) provided a copy of the AFOSI Report of
Investigation pertaining to the case (Exhibit D).
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, and the
Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed the application and
recommended denial.
Complete copies of the evaluations are attached at Exhibits E and F.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provides a response
which is attached at Exhibit H.
At the Board’s request, applicant provided a copy of his original
divorce decree, wherein his former spouse was awarded custody of the
minor children (Exhibit J).
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After thoroughly
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the
applicant’s narrative reason for discharge or the character of his
service should be changed. The statements applicant provided
attesting to his character are duly noted. However, after reviewing
the AFOSI Report of Investigation, we note that in addition to the
applicant’s daughter indicating that the applicant had taken indecent
liberties with her, another victim reported that applicant had also
taken indecent liberties with her. It appears that this victim had
nothing to gain in revenge by bringing forth these allegations.
Therefore, while the applicant’s daughter has recanted her story, we
find no such documentation from this other victim. In our opinion,
there was something more to this entire incident than just the story
of an impressionable child. As the Senior Attorney-Advisor indicates,
applicant had the opportunity to go to trial and challenge the charges
made against him and make the government prove its case; however,
after consulting with counsel, he chose not to do so. The applicant
now wants this Board to upgrade the discharge and change the narrative
reason for his separation, presumably on the basis that no civil
charges for molestation or abuse were ever prosecuted and that he has
been awarded the custody of his children. However, in view of the
foregoing, we find no impropriety in the characterization of
applicant's discharge. It appears that 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. We conclude, therefore, that the discharge
proceedings were proper and characterization of the discharge was
appropriate to the existing circumstances. Further, we also find
insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge
be upgraded on the basis of clemency. We have considered applicant's
overall quality of service, the events which precipitated the
discharge, and available evidence related to post-service activities
and accomplishments. On balance, we do not believe that clemency is
warranted.
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 1 February and 19 April 2000, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry Yonkers, Panel Chairman
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Oct 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. FBI Report.
Exhibit D. AFOSI ROI-withheld.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 17 Aug 99.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 1 Oct 99.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Oct 99.
Exhibit H. Counsel's response, dated 27 Oct 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Feb 00.
Exhibit J. Court Documents, dated 29 Oct 85.
TERRY YONKERS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01083
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He honored his commitment to the Air Force by serving for 23 years and asks that the Air Force (AF) honor it’s commitment to his service by entitling him and his family to an active duty retirement. He was honorably discharged effective 23 October 1999 for completion of required active service after serving 24 years and 8 days. Counsel was notified by the Wing JA that the applicant and his military...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02972 INDEX CODE: 110 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. On 5 May 82, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFM 39-12 (Request For Discharge for the Good of the Service) with service characterized as under other than honorable...
The available relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the applicant's military records (Exhibit B) and in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the appeal and provides his rationale for recommending that the applicant’s discharge be upgraded to general, but not honorable. ...
f. Vacation of nonjudicial punishment, dated 9 Jul 81, for failure to go to guardmount at the time prescribed. The complete report is at Exhibit F. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT”S RESPONSE TO FBI REPORT: A copy of the FBI report was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Oct 01 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
Given the date of the discharge applicant claims to have relied on, he could not, in good faith, have honestly believed that the Air Force had discharged him from active duty. Applicant's request to have his discharge upgraded to general (under honorable conditions) was considered; however, in view of the fact that he only served 90 days on active duty, and based on current standards he most likely would have received an entry level separation, we do not believe that his discharge should...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01083
Given the date of the discharge applicant claims to have relied on, he could not, in good faith, have honestly believed that the Air Force had discharged him from active duty. NPRC sent him documentation stating that he received an honorable discharge. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-01083 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10,...
Applicant submitted a written statement to the discharge authority along with two letters of support. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAES reviewed applicant's request and states that the RE code is correct (see Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force advisories states that DPPRS was incorrect in stating that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02200
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02200 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Mr. Douglas H. Kohrt XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records, specifically her DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training, Section IV, be changed from “Definitely Not Recommended” to “Highly...
The commander advised the applicant if his recommendation for discharge was approved, he would be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force. On 15 March 1999, the Air Force Discharge Review Board upgraded applicant’s characterization of discharge to Honorable and changed the reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02582
On 6 and 8 Dec 00, legal reviews recommended that the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with a UOTHC characterization be approved. He had 18 years, 7 months and 23 days of active service. We therefore recommend that his records be corrected to reflect he continued on active duty until eligible for lengthy service retirement and that he was promoted to the grade of MSgt the day before his discharge.