Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200157
Original file (0200157.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00157
            INDEX CODE 100.06  110.02
            COUNSELS: None

            HEARING DESIRED: Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  1985  general  discharge  be  upgraded  to  honorable   and   his
reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” (Separated with  a  general
or under-other-than-honorable conditions discharge) be changed so that
he can enlist in the Army.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a naïve 21-year-old and has no excuse  for  his  stupidity.  He
believes his commander took advantage of his youth and fears. He wants
to serve  his  country.   He  provides  two  character  references  as
support.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 17 Jun  82.  During
the period in question, he  was  a  sergeant  assigned  to  the  392nd
Information   Systems   Group   at   Vandenberg   AFB,   CA    as    a
telecommunications   operator/center   specialist.     His    Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) reflect overall ratings of 9.

In the  course  of  an  investigation,  the  applicant  made  a  sworn
statement on 27 Feb 86 to the Office of Special  Investigations  (OSI)
that he had engaged in homosexual acts with another male while in  the
Vandenberg dormitory in Jul 85.  As  a  result,  his  NCO  status  was
vacated and he received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) on 14 Apr 86.

On 22 Apr 86, the applicant’s commander recommended  him  for  general
discharge for commission of a serious offense,  specifically,  sodomy.
The applicant  consulted  counsel  but  waived  his  right  to  submit
statements.  The case was found legally sufficient on 23 Apr  86  and,
on 29  Apr  86,  the  discharge  authority  directed  the  applicant’s
separation.

The applicant was separated on 5 May 86 in the grade of  airman  first
class with a general discharge for Misconduct-Other Serious  Offenses,
and an RE code of “2B.”  He had 3 years,  8  months  and  19  days  of
active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE confirmed that the applicant’s RE code is correct.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 Jun 02 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 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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his discharge  should  be  upgraded  and  his  RE  code  changed.
Applicant’s contentions 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. In view of the above and  absent  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not
been shown that a personal appearance with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
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 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 6 August 2002 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                                  Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                                  Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                                  Mr. James W. Russell, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
00157 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 25 Feb 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jun 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.



                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102264

    Original file (0102264.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02264 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from “2C” (Involuntarily separated with an entry level separation without characterization of service) to “1B” [sic – There is no “1B” RE code. A complete copy of the evaluation is at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02302

    Original file (BC-2002-02302.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02302 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The characterization of his discharge be upgraded from general (under honorable conditions) to honorable and the narrative reason for separation and reentry (RE) code be changed to allow him to serve his country once again. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01156

    Original file (BC-2003-01156.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 26 August 1980, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge. - 6 August 1980, Notification of Intent to Vacate Suspended 15 May 1980 Nonjudicial Punishment (Article 15) for failure to go to appointed place of duty, on or about 3 August 1980, in violation of Article 86, UCMJ. Applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on 28 May 1991.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02860

    Original file (BC-2003-02860.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Recommendation Letter and Legal Review could not be found in the available records. As he has provided no facts warranting a change in his discharge, denial is recommended. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we conclude the general discharge was appropriate given the applicant’s misconduct and that the RE code, which was driven by the discharge, is correct.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04057

    Original file (BC-2002-04057.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 February 1984, the applicant received notification that he was being recommended for discharge for misconduct. On 13 March 1984, the discharge authority approved the recommended separation and directed that the applicant be issued a general discharge. On 3 March 1985, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to have his RE code of 2B changed.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200082

    Original file (0200082.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands. The application was timely filed. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200241

    Original file (0200241.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00241 INDEX CODE 100.06 COUNSEL: American Legion HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B to 3A so that he may pursue a career in the U. S. Army. The evidence of records supports the stated reasons for the applicant's ineligibility to reenlist and we are...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00438

    Original file (BC-2003-00438.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following information was obtained from the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) Hearing Record. On 17 Nov 00, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request for a change to the reason and authority for the discharge. After careful review of the available records and the information contained in the Air Force Discharge Review Board Hearing Record, the applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01523

    Original file (BC-2003-01523.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. He was separated from the Air Force on 20 December 2000 with a general (under honorable conditions discharge and issued an RE code of “2B”. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03877

    Original file (BC-2003-03877.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a copy of a letter from his squadron commander to the wing staff judge advocate, dated 25 Jun 01, outlining why the applicant did not meet retention requirements. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...