RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00419
INDEX CODE 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated into the Air Force Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was deprived of his due process rights to respond to the allegations
against him and, therefore, had no right to counsel by lack of notice.
In support of the appeal, the applicant submits a letter from his defense
counsel and letters of recommendation from his former co-workers and
squadron career advisor.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is 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 at Exhibits C and D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFRC/JAJ recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the
applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge for
fraudulent entry by certified mail to the same address he lists on his
application to the AFBCMR. Although required by law to be truthful, he
failed to disclose his arrest on 9 December 1990 for DUI, his arrest on
13 April 1991 for aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and eluding, and
that he had his driver’s license suspended from 15 January 1991 to 11
August 1992. The certified mail was signed and received by a person by the
name of L--- P---. The applicant did not respond to the discharge
notification within 15 days as required, and his discharge was processed.
While the applicant’s assigned military counsel indicates that he was never
provided a copy of the discharge notification, if he was concerned
regarding the status of the discharge action, he could have asked for
information as he has requested of other cases in the past. The
notification was sent to the applicant’s residence and although signed for
by someone else, there is an extremely high likelihood that he did have
notice of the discharge action as it can be presumed in good faith that the
individual either gave the notification to him or left it out for him.
Given the fact that he has already demonstrated his propensity to lie, he
has no credibility. The processing of his discharge complied with all
aspects of the governing Air Force Instruction. Moreover, he knew he was
being processed for discharge and the final action was not completed for
almost seven months. Assuming, arguendo, that he never received
notification, either he or his counsel could have made an inquiry into the
status of the discharge action during that period.
The AFRC/JAJ evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFRC/DPM recommends the application be denied, stating, in part, that they
concur with AFRC/JAJ’s recommendation; however, if relief is granted, they
recommend the applicant’s administrative discharge be revoked and he be
reinstated into the Reserves.
The AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 28 June 2002 for review and response within 30 days. However,
as of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that relief
should be granted. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The offices of primary
responsibility have adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we
agree with their opinions and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that
he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, 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 Docket Number 02-00419 in
Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/JAJ, dated 27 Mar 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 30 Apr 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 02.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02697
Every time the promotion issue came up he was told that he needed to complete Senior NCO Academy (SNCOA). 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 Force office of primary responsibility that absent supportive evidence from his commander recommending the applicant for promotion, favorable consideration of his request is not warranted. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00043
On 14 Jun 95, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and was issued a reenlistment eligibility status of “Ineligible.” Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/JAJ recommends that no...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03845
Counsel further asserts that because the instruction cited in the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 was not in effect at the time of the applicant’s alleged misconduct and there was no paragraph 5 as referred to, the reprimand was in error and constituted an erroneous basis for the discharge action subsequently initiated against the applicant. Counsel also asserts that the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 admonishes the applicant for misconduct that the...
On 25 April 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of six years. The Air Force has indicated that the applicant has received incapacitation pay for the period 2 Nov 96 through 1 May 97. She has completed a total of 17 years, and 5 days of satisfactory Federal service as of her Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 July 2002.
The Air Force should honor its agreement with him by providing five annual Reserve payments upon his retirement after 20 years. Neither HQ AFRC/DPM nor his MPF ever notified him of any change to his RTAP eligibility and allowed him to retire with the understanding that he was eligible for RTAP benefits. We do not believe the applicant should be penalized for an administrative error, and recommend his records reflect that he was, in fact, eligible for and entitled to RSSP under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01619
On 19 December 1999, administrative discharge actions were terminated and she was retained in the Air Force Reserve. The applicant’s service history record indicates that for R/R year 1 February 1999 to 31 January 2000 (contested period), she earned 17 Active Duty points 22 Inactive Duty points, 0 Extension Course Institute (ECI) points and 15 membership points for 54 total retirement points and a satisfactory year of Federal service. Therefore, in the absence of evidence indicating she...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02022
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2004-02022 INDEX CODE: 126.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: JEFFREY E. CHOSTNER XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 Dec 05 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), imposed on 3 February 2000 be set aside and his Enlisted Performance Report...
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...
Members of the Board Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, and Mr. Philip Sheuerman, considered this application on 4 September 2002. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Vice Chair Attachment: Ltr, AFRC/DPM, dtd 12 Aug 02 AFBCMR 02-01538 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction...