RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00328
INDEX CODE 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to
honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He is requesting reenlistment into the Oregon Air National Guard. He
states that he was not furnished a copy of his DD Form 214 at the time
of his separation (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 19 Dec 69; he
separated and was transferred to the inactive Reserve on 6 Dec 73.
He enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG) on 6 Dec 74 and continued
his military service until he was discharged on 15 Apr 97 from the Air
National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, with a general
discharge for a pattern of misconduct and fraudulent entry.
The facts surrounding his discharge from the Air National Guard are
unknown inasmuch as the complete discharge correspondence is not
available. The available record reflects that on 24 Dec 96, the
Adjutant General (TAG) approved the recommendation of the wing
commander to separate applicant with a general discharge, terminate
him from his AGR tour and military affiliation with the wing and defer
his retirement until age 60. He requested the case be forwarded to
the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) for lengthy service probation
(LSP) removal. On 18 Feb 97, the Director, ANG supported the TAG’s
recommendation that applicant be discharged from the ANG and as a
Reserve of the Air Force and that he be separated with a general
discharge. On 24 Mar 97, the Director, Air Force Review Boards Agency
advised that the SAF directed that the applicant’s approved
administrative discharge pursuant to AFI 36-3209 be executed and that
the SAF denied LSP.
Information extracted from the master personnel record reflects that
the applicant received seven (7) letters of reprimand based on
information received from an Air Force Office of Special Investigation
(AFOSI) report, for the following offenses:
(1) From approximately Jan 94 until Jan 96, he misused
government resources, by using government personnel, while on duty, to
perform tasks for his own personal gain. Essentially, he required
government personnel to pound nails out of lumber and load the lumber
into government vehicles to be taken to a private facility to be sold.
He sold the lumber and deposited the checks into his personal bank
account.
(2) Between approximately Jan 95 and Aug 96, pursuant to the
applicant’s direction and orders, government employees removed
aluminum flooring from an Air National Guard (ANG) building, which was
later sold by the applicant and deposited the proceeds into his own
personal bank account.
(3) In Jan and Feb 96, applicant committed the offense of theft
of government resources by hooking his personal recreational vehicle
(RV) into the electrical sources at a government building, without
authority.
(4) On or about Oct 89, applicant purchased a soda machine and
without authority placed the machine in a building without obtaining a
concession’s permit. From approximately Jan 90 until Feb 96, he used
government personnel, while on duty, to purchase sodas from the
commissary to refill the machine. During the six-year time frame,
most, if not all, of the profits were deposited into the applicant’s
credit union account. Estimated profits ranged from $100 to $300 a
week.
(5) From approximately 1991 until Feb 96, the applicant abused
his position by soliciting T-shirt and sweatshirt orders from ANG
personnel who were TDY, on government time; furthermore, he used
government time to take the orders and pick up the orders using
government vehicles. During the six-year time frame, most, if not
all, of the profits were deposited into the applicant’s personal
account.
(6) From approximately Aug 94 until Sep 96, he used government
employees, on government time, to assist in rebuilding his privately
owned vehicle, used paint owned by the government to paint the
vehicle, and government tools to repair the vehicle.
(7) From approximately Feb 94 to Feb 96, applicant utilized a
government vehicle for his personal use, by running personal errands
and to conduct non-authorized personal business and to travel to and
from work. On one occasion in Jan 96, the applicant had government
employees, during duty hours, using government vehicles, help move his
furniture and other belongings from an apartment into storage. Also
noted, the applicant was convicted of driving while intoxicated twice,
which during one occasion, he was driving a government vehicle.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP reviewed this application and recommended denial. Based on
the information provided in regard to applicant, they agree that he
was discharged accordingly due to the many situations that could be
construed as misconduct.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
10 May 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 careful review of the
limited discharge documentation available for our review, the
applicant’s discharge appears to be in compliance with the governing
AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation from the
Air National Guard and as a member of the Air Force Reserve was
inappropriate. We find no evidence of error in this case and after
thoroughly reviewing the limited documentation that has been submitted
in support of applicant’s appeal, we do not believe he has suffered
from an injustice. Therefore, based on the available evidence of
record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider the
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-00328 in Executive Session on 13 September 2002,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jan 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 3 Apr 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
The Board directed that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul 97, and assigned to the Retired Reserve on 2 Aug 97; but was continued on active duty until 31 Jan 99; and, that he was released from active duty on 31 Jan 99 for the Convenience of the Government...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02693
DPFP stated that, after being diagnosed with a seizure disorder, the applicant was discharged from the New Mexico Air National Guard on 1 Feb 01. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the AFBCMR Medical Consultant provided the following advisory opinion. The AFBCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW...
The applicant was progressively promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), with a promotion service date (PSD) of 11 Jan 87 and an effective date of 15 May 87. By ANG Special Order AP-124, dated 5 Jun 98, he was promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of colonel (O-6), with a PSD and effective date of 30 Jun 96. In the applicant’s case, as a colonel (O-6), he could have served to age 60 or 30 years of...
On 2 Feb 91, he enlisted in the Washington Air National Guard (ANG); he transferred to the Air Force Reserve on 10 Dec 92. On 19 Feb 95, he was discharged from the Air Force Reserve with a General discharge by reason of Defective Enlistment – Fraudulent Entry. On 5 Jul 94, HQ AFRES/CV approved the findings and recommendations and the case file was forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Board (AFPB) for a determination as to whether the applicant should receive Lengthy Service Probation (LSP).
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03654
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard (ANG) office of primary responsibility that ANG Instructions are clear on the establishment of DOR and subsequent requests for adjustments to such. The applicant had in excess of a two-year break in service from the Air Force before enlisting into the ANG establishing his DOR to be the date of his enlistment into the ANG. ...
Unfortunately, the other unit within the state held a promotion board and used the allocation during the same time of his promotion board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the control grade roster provided by DPFP is from April 2001 and does not reflect the information that it should. This would reflect an error on the part of the monthly control grade report.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02635 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility status reflected on his NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed to reflect eligible, vice ineligible. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03451
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03451 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 14 months time in grade as an E-4 that he accrued in the Army be applied towards his date of rank (DOR) in the Air National Guard (ANG). He enlisted as an Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank of 2 February 2001 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02685
AFPC/DPFP noted that in his statement, the applicant questioned the procedures at the Air Force Drug Testing Laboratory. According to the National Guard Bureau's Counterdrug Office, a positive test result is only reported after a member’s original urine sample has been tested and resulted in a positive test on three separate tests: screen, re-screen, and confirmation testing. The evidence of record reveals that the applicant was involuntarily discharged from the Air National Guard and as a...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that he understands that ACP was not designed for members serving in different pay status formats. The available evidence indicates that the applicant terminated his ACP agreement when he left AGR status and became a Traditional Guardsman prior to completing his ACP service commitment. ...