RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01347
INDEX NUMBER: 126.04
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Article 15 punishment imposed 30 Oct 01 be set aside.
________________________________________________________________
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 letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force found at Exhibits C and D.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application in regards to the appropriateness
of the Article 15 action and recommended denial of the applicant’s
request to set it aside. A complete copy of the evaluation is at
Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application in regards to the impact of the
Article 15 on the applicant’s promotion opportunity. They defer to the
recommendation made by AFLSA/JAJM.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19
Jun 02 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
________________________________________________________________
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. 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 as the primary basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. We note that the applicant contends that a
Whistleblower incident took place, but we did not find any evidence in
the record that an official Inspector General complaint was filed or
any other verification of a Whistleblower incident. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_______________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number 02-01347 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 12 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 24 May 02.
Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 11 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01496
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his available military personnel records. The basis of the applicant's request for relief was insufficient to warrant setting aside the Article 15 action, and did not demonstrate an equitable basis for relief. By letter, dated 19 Aug 03, the Board's staff requested that the applicant provide information pertaining to his activities since leaving the service.
Members of the Board Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, and Ms. Cheryl Dare considered this application on August 28, 2002. ROSCOE HINTON JR. Panel Chair Attachments: 1. Ltr, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd Aug 12, 2002 AFBCMR 02-01659 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01078
His EPR rendered for the period 6 Mar 01 through 30 Sep 01 be declared void and removed from his records; and, that the report be reaccomplished with the evaluation rewritten and considered for a senior-level indorsement by the wing commander. This reviewing commander was also the same commander to whom the appeal of the Article 15 action would have been made. In fact, the applicant provided a statement from his commander indicating that he did not receive a senior rater indorsement on his...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01094 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00; 129.04 XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Fred L. Bauer XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Grade Determination (OGD) that required him to retire in the grade of captain be overturned, his retirement grade be corrected to reflect the grade of major, and he be paid all back...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02313
On 21 October 1991, having considered the evidence and the applicant’s response to the Article 15, his commander determined the applicant committed the offense alleged, and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction from sergeant to airman first class (E-3), forfeiture of $150 of his pay, and fourteen days of extra duty. As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01294 INDEX CODE 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 action and the punishment imposed on 7 Jun 01, be set aside. Applicant's profile for the last 6 reporting periods follows: Period Ending Evaluation 26 Jun 96 5 - Immediate Promotion 26 Jun 97 5 28 Jun 98 5 28 Jun 99 5 28...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01884
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. On 11 June 1991, his commander determined that he committed the offense alleged and imposed punishment consisting of a reduction in grade to technical sergeant (E6). Likewise, the commander was given the responsibility to determine an appropriate punishment if he determined the applicant had committed the offense.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02628
Applicant chose not to appeal the commander’s determination, which prevented a timely look by another commander at the issues applicant now raises again, over three years later. There was sufficient evidence for the commander to determine that the applicant had committed the alleged offenses. If the Board elects to set aside the Article 15, the applicant’s effective date and date of rank would be 1 Apr 98.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02534
She prepared an AF Form 3212, Record of Supplementary Action under Article 15, UCMJ, on 17 May 02, and provided it to the legal office. In his commander's response she states that she had all of the facts in front of her for the first time and was told by the wing commander that she could let him test for staff sergeant. However, the legal office was incorrect in that determinations of "unusual circumstances" or "the best interests of the Air Force" are made by commanders, not lawyers.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04076
In this case, the commander concluded that the applicant had assaulted his wife. Finally, although the actions taken against the applicant may have been instigated by his ex-wife’s allegations against him, the commander only took action after an investigation by the OSI substantiated misconduct on the applicant’s part. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.