RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2002-01374
COUNSEL: BARRY T. AUGUSTINE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He receive back pay from March 1998 to March 2002.
2. He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant and retired in the
grade of technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 28 September 2001, a HQs --th Fighter Wing (ACC) special court-martial
decided that “all rights, privileges, and property of which he was deprived
due to the sentence that was set aside will be restored”.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached 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, Exhibits C and D.
His Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) rendered since 1990, reflect the
following ratings:
PERIOD ENDING RATING
14 Mar 1990 5
14 Mar 1991 4
14 Mar 1992 4
26 Jan 1993 3
26 Jan 1994 5
26 Jan 1995 5
26 Jan 1996 5
26 Jul 1996 5
26 Jul 1997 5
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and states that no further military
justice action is necessary regarding the disposition of the applicant’s
claims.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/JA also reviewed this application and indicates that the applicant was
provided supplemental promotion consideration for TSgt for cycles 99E6,
00E6, and 01E6 and was not selected for promotion. Therefore, his claim
that he was assured of promotion is without merit. He also claims that he
is entitled to promotion because his current service for basic pay exceeds
the high year tenure (HYT) for the grade of staff sergeant. This argument
is also without merit as the applicant is not entitled to automatic
promotion merely because he exceeded the HYT while on appellate leave or
because his HYT was extended under Stop Loss. Based on the above, they
recommend denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The applicant’s counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated
that at this time his client chooses not to respond to the advisory
opinions.
A complete copy of the response is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 reviewing the evidence of record,
we find that the action taken by the Air Force in regard to providing the
applicant supplemental promotion consideration was in accordance with the
applicable regulation. Since the applicant has been provided proper
consideration for promotion during the periods in question and was not
selected, we find no basis upon which to conclude that he should be
promoted to the next higher grade. His contention that he is entitled to
promotion because his service exceeded his high year tenure (HYT) is noted;
however, as indicated by AFPC/JA, exceeding his HYT does not entitle him to
automatic promotion. In view of the above findings and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
his request for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant and retirement
in that grade. In regard to applicant’s request to receive pay for the
period March 1998 through March 2002, we have been informed that the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS-DE) is communicating with the
applicant to determine the benefits due during the period in question.
Therefore, no action by the Board is necessary on this issue.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC 2002-01374
in Executive Session on 27 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 7 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 18 Nov 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Nov 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Jan 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01666 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 126.03, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Any mention of a Letter of Admonishment (LOA) for an alleged unprofessional relationship be removed from her records, including her officer performance report (OPR) closing 5 May 99. In JA’s view, relief should be...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Military Justice Division, AFLSA/JAJM, reviewed the application and states that the applicant maintains that he did not knowingly file a false claim, but was misled by investigators and the legal office personnel. However, should the Board void the Article 15, it could reinstate his promotion to technical sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 2000. In the applicant’s...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00353
The Board may correct a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally the Board may correct records related to action on the sentence of court-martial for the purpose of clemency. The applicant was charged with violating a lawful general regulation in Korea by transferring duty-free goods in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02837
His dishonorable discharge be upgraded to honorable. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
His reduction to the grade of E-1 be remitted and he be reinstated to the grade of staff sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. If the Board feels it is in the best interest of the Air Force to retain the member, it should restore his grade to staff sergeant or grant a HYT waiver to extend him until December 2005.
On 8 Apr 99, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was considering whether he should recommend to the Commander, 11th Air Force (11 AF) that he should be punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on allegations that between on or about 1 Mar 98 and on or about 4 Mar 99, he was derelict in the performance of his duties in that he willfully failed to refrain from engaging in an inappropriate familiar relationship, to include hugging and kissing, with a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02904
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02904 INDEX CODE: 110.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to reflect that he was honorably discharged for medical reasons in the grade of sergeant. There is no legal basis for upgrading his discharge. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01608
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01608 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of staff sergeant (E-5) be restored, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 99. On 8 Apr 02, after considering the matters presented by the applicant, the commander found that the applicant had committed the alleged...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01543
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 Jan 03, be removed from his records. We note that regardless of his commander's action, the court-martial conviction and referral EPR rendered him ineligible for promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the close-out date of his AF Form 910, Enlisted...