RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01333
INDEX CODE: 110.00, 107.00
COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His rank, as displayed on his DD Form 214, be changed from Airman
(AMN/E-2) to Airman First Class (A1C/E-3).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was a member of the -th Security Police Squadron (SPS) and guarded
Air Force One while former President Ford was in office. He claims
that his supervisor told him at the time that he, as a member of the
-th SPS, had the right to wear the Presidential Unit Citation and Unit
Citation.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, a copy of his DD Form 214 and a letter of support from the
Disabled American Veterans (DAV) National Service Office.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 15
May 1974. He was promoted to the grade of A1C effective and with a
date of rank of 15 May 1975. On 13 August 1975, applicant received an
Article 15 for failure to report for duty. The punishment consisted
of a reduction in grade to Amn suspended, until 12 November 1975
unless sooner vacated, and forfeiture of $50. He was enrolled in an
alcohol rehabilitation program on 13 August 1975. On 18 August 1975,
applicant underwent a psychological examination that found no
psychiatric disorder but a loss of control over alcohol. Applicant
received an additional Article 15 on 24 November 1975 for being absent
without leave (AWOL). Punishment imposed was reduction in grade to
Amn. On 21 January 1976,the applicant was notified by his commander
that he was being recommended for discharge in accordance with Air
Force Manual (AFM) 39-10 and that probation and rehabilitation were
considered but not recommended. The applicant acknowledged receipt of
the notification on 21 January 1976 and declined legal counsel based
on the discharge being under honorable conditions. He was honorably
discharged on 4 February 1976, in the grade of Amn, after serving one
year, eight months and twenty days.
Applicant withdrew his request for the award of the Presidential Unit
Citation upon notification from AFPC/DPPPRA that he was not eligible
to receive it. DPPPRA’s letter and response from the applicant are at
Exhibits C and D, respectively.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
DPPPWB reviewed this application regarding the request for a change of
his grade on his DD Form 214 from Amn to A1C and recommended denial.
DPPPWB states that the applicant received two Article 15’s that
eventually reduced him in grade to Amn. They note that the applicant
appealed his reduction in grade and that the appeal was denied on 19
December 1975. Therefore, since the applicant has not contested the
procedural correctness of the Article 15’s or the punishment they
imposed, or that they be set aside, that his appeal be denied.
DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant claims that his DD 214 displays E-2 which, he believes, is
an A1C and that E-1 is Amn. He asks for an explanation of this
apparent diecrepancy. Applicant contends that he never received any
Article 15’s. He contends that he received two Letters of Reprimand
(LOR’s), not two Article 15’s. He states that his major told him that
he had to receive three LOR’s in order to qualify for an Article 15.
He would like to know how two LOR’s turned into Article 15’s.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded
that his grade should be changed. We agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either
an error or injustice. Hence, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01333 in Executive Session on 2 September 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 27 May 03, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 17 Jun 03, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 24 Jun 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 03.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Aug 03.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02432
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02432 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be changed to honorable. He was evaluated on 13 August 1975 whereupon the evaluating officer recommended the applicant be discharged immediately and that he be furnished a general...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00919
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Based on the addition of the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AFCM, 1 OLC), and the Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), he would have been selected for promotion to the grade of master sergeant prior to his retirement since he missed promotion by 1 point or so. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. However, based upon the presumption of regularity in the...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00300
AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00300 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE UNITED STATES AIR FORCES IN EUROPE 36TH FIGHTER WING FROM: 36 SPS/CC SUBJ: Letter of Notification j.- TO: Amn 36 SPS 1 2 OCT 1993 1. You were, on or about 9 Apri 1 93, derelict in the performance of your duties at Bitburg Air Base, Germany, in that you willfully failed to maintain your dormitory room, for which you...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04036
The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request. DPPPE further states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Upon review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the EPR appeal board stated the gortex jacket and boots...
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0438
CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0438 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. LOR, 27 MAY 99 - Late for duty. LOR, 21 Jul 99 13, AF Form 3070, 13 Aug 99 14, LOC, 8 Nov 99 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00427
The Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied applicant’s request for upgrade of discharge to honorable and change of reenlistment eligibility code on 16 October 1975 (Exhibit B). On 9 February 1978, the Air Force Discharge Review Board again considered all the evidence of record and concluded that the applicant should receive an honorable discharge. He was successfully treated for this alcoholism while hospitalized at the Kingsbridge VA Hospital in Bronx, New York from 8 August 1976...
Since filing his appeal, he has been promoted to the grade of SRA with a DOR of 15 Feb 01. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained in the applicant’s military records (Exhibit B), and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D and E). TEDDY L. HOUSTON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02866 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03970
On 22 Dec 82, he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 for financial irresponsibility and was reduced in grade from staff sergeant to sergeant. In their view, the Tower Amendment was not applicable to the applicant because he was reduced in grade prior to completion of 20 years of active service. In order for the applicant to have been eligible for retirement pay recalculation under the Tower Amendment, he would have needed 20 years of active service at the time he held the...
He requests award of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM), lSt and Znd Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) (sent to applicant), Arctic Service Medal, the Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, an additional Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA), ZOLC, for the 381St and 384th Security Police Squadrons, the Air Force Longevity Service Award (AFLSA) Ribbon, lOLC (issued to applicant), the Air Reserve Forces Meritorious Service Medal (sent to applicant) and the...