ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03052
INDEX CODES: 105.00, 126.03,
126.04, 111.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His conviction by summary court-martial be expunged from his records.
The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 17 Jun 97, be
set aside and removed from his records.
The letters of reprimand (LORs) dated 1 Feb 99 and 6 Nov 00 be voided
and removed from his records.
The letters of counseling (LOCs) dated 6 Jul 98, 17 Nov 98, and 3 Dec
98, be voided and removed from his records.
The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing 18 Jul 97, 13 Feb 99,
and 12 Aug 00 be voided and removed from his records
He be reinstated to active duty in the grade of staff sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On June 18, 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied an application pertaining to
the subject applicant, in which he requested that his conviction by
summary court-martial be expunged from his records; the nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, imposed on 17 Jun 97, be set aside and
removed from his records; the letters of reprimand (LORs) dated
1 Feb 99 and 6 Nov 00 be voided and removed from his records; the
letters of counseling (LOCs) dated 6 Jul 98, 17 Nov 98, and 3 Dec 98,
be voided and removed from his records; the Enlisted Performance
Reports (EPRs) closing 18 Jul 97, 13 Feb 99, and 12 Aug 00 be voided
and removed from his records; and, that he be reinstated to active
duty in the grade of staff sergeant. A complete copy of the Record of
Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H (with Exhibits A through G).
On 25 Sep 02, the applicant requested reconsideration of the
application, indicating that he has taken it upon himself to bear the
endeavor of providing sufficient proof concerning the issues raised in
his original application, of which he has addressed in detail. His
clear objective is to honestly regain what was taken from him so
unfairly and abruptly.
Applicant’s complete submission, to include documents pertaining to
computer forensics and processing of evidence and two supporting
statements, is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Regarding the applicant’s request that his conviction by summary
court-martial be expunged from his records, as he has been previously
advised, it is not within the statutory authority of this Board to
change the finding or verdict of a court-martial. The Board does have
the authority to correct the record to reflect actions taken by the
reviewing official and action on the sentence based on clemency.
However, after a thorough review of the evidence presented, we again
find no basis to do so. Therefore, the applicant’s request is not
favorably considered.
2. Concerning the applicant’s requests that the nonjudicial
punishment under Article 15, imposed on 17 Jun 97, be set aside and
removed from his records; the LORs dated 1 Feb 99 and 6 Nov 00 be
voided and removed from his records; the LOCs dated 6 Jul 98,
17 Nov 98, and 3 Dec 98, be voided and removed from his records; the
EPRs closing 18 Jul 97, 13 Feb 99, and 12 Aug 00 be voided and removed
from his records; and, that he be reinstated to active duty in the
grade of staff sergeant, we also previously determined that there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action. We have
reviewed his most recent submission and find the evidence provided
insufficient to warrant a reversal of our previous determination in
this case. Regarding the applicant’s request to have the 1 Feb 99 LOR
removed from his records, we did take note of the statement from the
individual who claimed to have been the applicant’s former flight
commander. He indicated that the LOR was pulled from the applicant’s
personnel information file but resurfaced in the file contrary to his
intent. However, we note that this individual was not the one who
actually signed the LOR. The LOR was signed by the squadron section
commander and the applicant has not provided a statement of support
from that individual. Accordingly, we remain unpersuaded that
corrective action on the 1 Feb 99 LOR is warranted. Furthermore, no
evidence has been presented which has shown to our satisfaction that
the information used as a basis for the Article 15, LORs, and LOCs was
erroneous or were the result of an abuse of discretionary authority,
or that the contested EPRs were inaccurate assessments of the
applicant’s performance at the time they were prepared. In view of
the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the
contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to act favorably on the
applicant’s requests.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
03052 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, applicant, dated 25 Sep 02, w/atchs.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00800
Also, based on MSgt T---'s statement, it appears the applicant complied with MSgt W---'s order to remain silent. DPSFC recommended denying the applicant's request to remove the LOR, Control Roster placement and EPR on the basis that the applicant did not provide sufficient justification to warrant removal. According to DPPPAB, the applicant believed he did not receive a “5” promotion recommendation on his EPR closing 8 Oct 97 because of his placement on the control roster.
Also, based on MSgt T---'s statement, it appears the applicant complied with MSgt W---'s order to remain silent. DPSFC recommended denying the applicant's request to remove the LOR, Control Roster placement and EPR on the basis that the applicant did not provide sufficient justification to warrant removal. According to DPPPAB, the applicant believed he did not receive a “5” promotion recommendation on his EPR closing 8 Oct 97 because of his placement on the control roster.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00224 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, imposed on 16 Nov 98, be set aside and removed from his records, and that all rights, privileges, and benefits taken from him because of the Article 15 be restored. A complete copy...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request that the AF Form 418 be declared void and removed from his records. Reenlistment in the Air Force is a privilege and not a right. Only those individuals who consistently demonstrate the qualities necessary for...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03007A
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s request that the AF Form 418 be declared void and removed from his records. Reenlistment in the Air Force is a privilege and not a right. Only those individuals who consistently demonstrate the qualities necessary for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03078
The commander in this case clearly considered all of the information the applicant provided. The Consultant provides details and analysis of the applicant’s military and DVA medical records and finds no evidence to support a diagnosis of Behcet’s disease either in service or following discharge. This is why a military member can receive a disability rating from the DVA without being rated by the Air Force, or receive a higher rating from the DVA than the one awarded by the Air Force.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02173 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 30 Aug 98 through 29 Aug 99 be declared void and removed from his records. Based on the reason(s) for the referral EPR, the applicant’s commander could very well have...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00084 (CASE 3) INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 7 Jan 92 through 6 Jan 93 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...
The Board noted that, as a result of the IG substantiating 11 of the 15 allegations, the applicant was relieved of her command, received the contested LOR/UIF and referral OPR. Although the Board majority is recommending the cited referral OPR be removed from applicant’s records, the Board believes that the applicant’s reassignment should be accomplished through Air Force assignment processing. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency September 25, 2001 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03183
He was punished with a letter of counseling (LOC) and an Article 15 for the same offense. Members who wish to contest their commander’s determination or the severity of the punishment imposed may appeal to the next higher commander. In reference to the applicant contending that it was a violation of his constitutional rights to get a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) before he was convicted, that he was acquitted of all prior civil charges and charged with disorderly conduct, and the civilian...