RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02173
INDEX NUMBER: 126.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Article 15 imposed on him on 27 Aug 93 be removed from his
record.
__________________________________________________________________
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 Exhibit
C.
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant alleges that, according to the area defense counsel, “the
Article 15 was written for the wrong charge” and therefore does not
apply. The Article 15 specification alleged that on 14 Aug 93 the
applicant absented himself from his unit without authority and
remained absent until on or about 18 Aug 93, in violation of Article
86, UCMJ. It is clear from the evidence submitted with this
application that the applicant in fact violated Article 86 of the
UCMJ. Even now, the applicant does not deny that he was absent
without authority on those days.
The complete 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
6 Sep 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 opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. 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 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 02-02173
in Executive Session on 9 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 22 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 6 Sep 02.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00278
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. 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. _________________________________________________________________ The...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an injustice are contained in his complete submission, which is at Exhibit A. 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. _________________________________________________________________ The...
After he presented his evidence before the commander, it was determined that he was not guilty of the Article 93 violations but his commander found him guilty of the Article 134 violations. The specific reasons for his action was that he had received an Article 15 in May 2001, and in July his suspended reduction was vacated for violations of Articles 128 and 134 of the UCMJ; he had not completed all the requirements for upgrade to his 5 skill level as a Paralegal; and that his misconduct...
On 3 Mar 97, the discharge authority approved the discharge action and directed that the applicant be furnished a UOTHC discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed this application and concluded that the administrative relief of removal of the 16 Aug 96 record of the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 from the applicant’s records was not warranted. A complete copy of the DPPRS...
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no basis upon which to favorably consider this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. A majority found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and...
_________________________________________________________________ DFAS EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE reviewed the appeal and provided their rationale for recommending denial. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF DFAS EVALUATION: The applicant provided a response, contending that DFAS’ assertion that discharge ends any contractual relationship with the government regarding pay and entitlements is...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00291
He had completed a total of 12 years, 8 months and 18 days and was serving in the grade of airman basic (E-1) at the time of discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFLSA/JAJM recommends the application be denied. The record of trial indicates this case was fully litigated.
It was determined that applicant’s wife did not require a non-medical attendant and the applicant’s supervisor notified the applicant that he was not authorized to travel on the orders already cut but would be required to take leave. While applicant contends he did not know he was not authorized to use the orders, he did request leave in order to travel. The AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPE recommends the applicant’s request for removal of the referral OPR from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01539
He was sentenced to reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1), confinement for 15 years, and a dishonorable discharge. On 15 Aug 97, he was discharged pursuant to the General Court- Martial Order, with a dishonorable discharge. ___________________________________________________________________ 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...
He indicates that he was denied access to documents or evidence in his case. He requested, but was denied the right to cross-examine his former supervisor and his wife. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.