ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01793
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he provides four letters
of character reference in support of the following original requests:
a. The Article 15 he received on 26 Jan 01 be set aside and
removed from his records.
b. The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered on him for the
period 7 Nov 00 through 6 Nov 01 be voided and removed from his records.
c. He be awarded as a minimum an Air Force Commendation Medal for
his assignment to Naval Air Station Keflavik.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 16 Jan 01, while serving in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6),
proceedings under Article 15 were initiated against the applicant for the
violation of Article 95 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
“Resisting Arrest,” and Article 134, “Disorderly Conduct and Drunkenness.”
On 19 Jan 01, the applicant accepted proceedings under Article 15 and
waived his right to trial by court martial and elected to make a personal
appearance before his commander and submit a written presentation. On 26
Jan 01, the applicant’s commander found that the applicant committed one
or more of the offenses charged. He imposed punishment of reduction to
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), suspended for six months, forfeiture of
$1,003.00 pay, suspended for six months, and a reprimand. The applicant
appealed the punishment. On 21 Feb 01, the appellate authority denied the
applicant’s appeal. An EPR was rendered on the applicant closing out 6
Nov 01 with an overall rating of “4.”
On 5 Nov 02, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s requests
indicated above. On 18 Dec 02, the applicant submitted five letters of
character reference in support of his appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in
support of the appeal, the majority of the Board remains unpersuaded that
the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. The majority
of the Board notes that only one of the individuals that provided the
character references had first-hand knowledge of the incident in question,
the applicant’s first sergeant at the time. While the letters attest to
the applicant’s excellent duty performance and character, with the
exception of the first sergeant, they do not shed any new light on the
incident. The Board weighed very heavily the information and opinions
contained in the first sergeant’s letter. However, a majority of the
board does not believe it overrides the evidence of record. While it is
apparent that the first sergeant viewed the incident differently from the
commander, this is not a totally unusual occurrence. The ultimate
responsibility to determine the appropriate action to be taken was the
commander’s. A majority of the Board finds that the commander acted
completely within his authority and do not find evidence that his actions
were either arbitrary or capricious. Therefore, the majority of the Board
finds no basis on which to grant the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
__________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-01793 in
Executive Session on 7 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen Graham, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny applicant’s request. Ms.
Graham voted to grant the applicant’s requests but did not desire to
submit a minority report. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit H. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Nov 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, Lt Col L---, dated 27 Nov 02.
Exhibit J. Letter, 16HMXS/CCF, dated 27 Nov 02.
Exhibit K. Letter, Col K---, dated 30 Nov 02.
Exhibit L. Letter, Col L---, undated.
JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied. I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01793B
_________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Ms. Graham voted to grant the applicant’s requests and has attached a minority report at Exhibit R. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit M. Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jan 03, w/atchs. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-01793C
THIRD ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01793 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant requests reconsideration of the following previously denied requests: a. After reviewing the applicant’s complete evidence of record to include the new evidence, the Board again denied the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01793
The patrolman reported that the applicant stated that he was not going to be handcuffed and he grabbed the patrolman’s arm. He also stated that the witnesses’ statement was not true. He contends that out of three alcohol incidents under the same commander, only the African Americans were punished.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02127
The applicant presented materials for consideration and made a personal appearance; however, on 5 Jan 01 the XX AW commander strongly recommended to the 22nd Air Force (22 AF) commander that the applicant be removed from the promotion list. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. HQ AFRC/DPM advises that the Article 15 was never placed in the applicant’s record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02327
His sentence was reduced to reduction to the grade of airman (E-2), three months confinement, and forfeiture of $400.00 per month for three months. 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 10 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01791
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01791 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His assignment history as indicated on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) viewed by the CY01 Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be corrected to reflect a duty title of “Strategic Airlift...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00423
The Senior Rater (who was not an evaluator on the EPR) provided a letter of support only to agree that the reason that feedback was not accomplished is inaccurate. Furthermore, AFI 36-2406, paragraph 2.10 states “A rater’s failure to conduct a required or requested feedback session will not, of itself, invalidate any subsequent performance report.” The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB makes no recommendation regarding the applicant’s request, but advises that should the EPR...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03991
On 30 Jun 99 at 0810, the Squadron Section Commander called to check on the applicant’s outprocessing. The applicant completed his outprocessing on 1 Jul 99. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03509
The applicant acknowledges in her application, as well as her responses to the Article 15, that she told her supervisor that she was having nasal surgery that, at the time, she knew was false. They provide information regarding the applicant’s original date of rank as a staff sergeant should the Board want to grant the relief requested. To date, a response has not been received.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02152
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 4 Oct 02 for review and comment within 30 days. 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...