Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01496
Original file (BC-2003-01496.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01496
            INDEX CODES:  66.00, 126.03,
                                               131.09

            COUNSEL:  SCOTT A. MORRISON

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank be restored from airman basic to airman third class.

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

His Article 15 be removed from his records.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was no basis for his reduction in  grade  because  his  military
history did not reflect "inaptitude."

The alleged incident was not supported by a conviction in  the  courts
of Lake Charles, Louisiana.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  extracts  from  his
available military personnel records.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's  available  personnel  records  indicate   that   he   was
discharged on 5 Jun 58 under the provisions of AFR  39-16  (Inaptitude
or Unsuitability) and furnished a general discharge.  He was  credited
with 1 year, 7, months, and 14 days of active service.

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of  Investigation,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided a copy of an investigation report,
which is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial of the applicant's request to  have  the
Article 15 removed from his records.  AFLSA/JAJM indicated that a  set
aside should only be granted when the evidence demonstrates  an  error
or a clear injustice.  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.   In  AFLSA/JAJM's
view, the applicant provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice
related to the nonjudicial punishment action.

A complete copy of the AFLSA/JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPWB noted that AFLSA/JAJM reviewed  the  case  and  determined
that there were no legal errors requiring corrective action  regarding
the Article 15 and recommended  denial  of  the  applicant's  request.
AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that they defer to AFLSA/JAJM's recommendation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPRS indicated  that  the  applicant  did  not  submit  any  new
evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred  in  the
discharge processing.  Additionally, he provided no  facts  warranting
an upgrade of discharge.  They deferred to the Board to  determine  if
the  applicant  should  be  granted  relief  based  on   the   limited
documentation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  18
Jul 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit G).

By letter, dated 19 Aug 03,  the  Board's  staff  requested  that  the
applicant provide  information  pertaining  to  his  activities  since
leaving the service.  However, it was  returned  due  to  insufficient
address (Exhibit H).

Copies of the Air Force evaluations, the FBI Report,  and  the  AFBCMR
letter, dated 19 Aug 03, requesting  information  from  the  applicant
were forwarded to counsel on 15 Sep 03 for review and response.  As of
this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit I).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, based upon the presumption of regularity in  the  conduct  of
governmental affairs and without evidence to  the  contrary,  we  must
assume that the applicant's discharge and  any  corresponding  actions
pertaining thereto were proper  and  in  compliance  with  appropriate
directives.  Furthermore, In the absence of sufficient evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2003-01496 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  FBI Report.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 Jun 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Aug 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Sep 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00673

    Original file (BC-2004-00673.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pursuant to the Board's request, the FBI, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM indicated that under 10 USC 1552(f), the AFBCMR’s ability to correct records related to courts-martial is limited. We do not believe an honorable discharge is warranted due to the limited documentation provided by the applicant regarding his activities since his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01763

    Original file (BC-2003-01763.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-01884.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00629

    Original file (BC-2003-00629.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 3 Jun 81, an Evaluation Officer interviewed the applicant and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with a general discharge. He chose not to appeal the commander's determination, which prevented a timely look by another commander at the issues he now raises over 22 years later. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844

    Original file (BC-2002-02844.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01608

    Original file (BC-2003-01608.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2002 | 0201294

    Original file (0201294.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01294 INDEX CODE 126.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Article 15 action and the punishment imposed on 7 Jun 01, be set aside. Applicant's profile for the last 6 reporting periods follows: Period Ending Evaluation 26 Jun 96 5 - Immediate Promotion 26 Jun 97 5 28 Jun 98 5 28 Jun 99 5 28...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0100190

    Original file (0100190.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations in two separate letters. In regards to the medals he is requesting, the applicant stresses that he wore all of the medals he is requesting while on active duty, but they were not entered into his records. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801795

    Original file (9801795.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A copy of the complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the case and provided the pertinent information regarding the applicant’s demotion. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed or his grade restored. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03787

    Original file (BC-2002-03787.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03787 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general discharge. He was found guilty and sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 32 months, reduction in grade to airman basic (E-1) and forfeiture of all pay...