RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00559
INDEX NUMBER: 133.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be restored to the grade of E-2 with his original date of rank.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was erroneously demoted and never received a formal Article 15. He
is not seeking any back pay or benefits.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 2 May 61 for a term of four
years. On 21 Mar 62, the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-
martial for the offense of failure to obey a lawful order by operating
a motor vehicle on base without a valid state operators permit. The
applicant was reduced to the grade of airman basic (E-1).
On 6 May 62, the applicant sustained a severe head injury when he fell
from a moving truck while on duty. The applicant’s injury was
determined to be in line of duty and not due to misconduct. On 22 Oct
62, after treatment and continuing problems, the applicant was
hospitalized for consideration by a physical evaluation board (PEB).
On 7 Feb 63, the PEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). Due to the applicant’s
impending retirement, a grade determination was done to determine
whether he should retire in the grade of E-2 vice E-1. It was
determined that the applicant did not serve satisfactorily in the
higher grade. On 26 Mar 63, the applicant was placed on the TDRL in
the grade of airman basic with a 70% disability rating. On 23 Oct 64,
the applicant was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired in the
grade of airman basic.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/JA recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant
was actually reduced as a result of a summary court-martial action,
not administratively as he asserts. The applicant states that he
never received a formal Article 15. This is correct, but does not
reflect an error. A convening authority has discretion in determining
what action to take concerning minor offenses under the UCMJ, and it
is wholly within that discretion to determine to proceed with summary
court-martial action rather than under Article 15. They also note
that the same reduction in grade that the applicant complains of could
have occurred by Article 15.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/JA. The complete
evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
25 Apr 03 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 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 BC-2003-
00559 in Executive Session on 19 June 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 25 Mar 03.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Apr 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
OLGA M. CRERAR
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01104
Applicant's EPR profile since 1992 follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION 29 Mar 92 5 29 Mar 93 5 29 Mar 94 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 95 5 29 Mar 96 5 31 Jan 97 5 31 Jan 98 5 31 Jan 99 5 31 Jan 00 5 31 Jan 01 5 * 31 Mar 02 4 (referral) 1 Jan 03 5 * Contested report. He indicated that at the time his EPR would have closed out, the applicant was under investigation for an alleged assault incident that occurred on 25 Jan 02. The evidence of record indicates that a CDI was conducted into allegations...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00734
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2003-00734 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 2 June 1977 through 1 June 1978 be declared void and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant. Applicant’s performance...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01348
On 3 Apr 84, the applicant was placed on the TDRL with a 40% disability rating. The applicant was removed from the TDRL and retired from the Air Force on 1 Aug 85 with a 40% disability rating. The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 May 03 for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02733
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02733 INDEX CODE: 110.02, 108.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: N0 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended to reflect his active duty grade as staff sergeant (E-5), and his date of separation be changed to reflect the date he was removed from...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01763
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01763 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 131.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank be changed from airman basic to airman first class. The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. The evidence of record reflects that the...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01216
On 19 December 2000, the discharge authority’s staff judge advocate recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC characterization of service. It is also JA’s opinion that the applicant should not be allowed to use his discharge request to halt the court-martial process established by law as the proper means to adjudicate the criminal allegations against him and now, under the guise of an...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00686
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she enlisted in the Air Force, she was instructed by the recruiter to list her current residential address as her home of record (HOR). In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of her DD Form 1966/1 Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States, which reflects her current address and her home of record as the same location. We took notice of the applicant's...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00912
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00912 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2B, “Separated with a general or under-other-than-honorable-conditions (UOTHC) discharge,” be changed. For these actions, she received an LOR, which was placed in her existing UIF. ...