RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01762
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his discharge his superiors never offered him alcohol/drug
addiction counseling nor did they ask if he had a problem. His addiction
led him to make wrong choices that he wouldn’t have normally made if he
were clean and sober. Since his discharge, he attends substance abuse
meetings regularly and is in contact with his sponsor daily. He is
currently an Administrative Assistant for the Director of Clinical Trial
Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University. He states that he served the
Air Force honorably for two terms.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement and
other documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 May 1986 in the grade of
airman basic.
The applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial
punishment upon him for the following: On or about 22 March 1995, the
applicant failed to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of
duty. After consulting counsel the applicant waived his right to court-
martial and accepted nonjudicial proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ. He
requested to make a personal appearance and submitted statements in his own
behalf. On 7 April 1995 the commander approved the Article 15 and the
following punishment was imposed: reduction to the grade of senior airman
and 14 days extra duty. Reduction to the grade of senior airman was
suspended until October 1995, after which time it would have been remitted
without further action, unless sooner vacated. The applicant did not
appeal and the Article 15 was filed in his Unfavorable Information File
(UIF).
On 11 April 1995, the applicant’s commander and supervisor signed an AF
Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, denying him
reenlistment because he violated Article 86, UCMJ, on 22 March 1995. They
indicated that the applicant was not considered suitable for reenlistment
at that time. They suggested he be reevaluated and reconsidered for
reenlistment when the punishment was remitted.
On 23 August 1995, the applicant’s commander and supervisor signed an AF
Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration, granting him
reenlistment. They indicated that they strongly recommended applicant for
reenlistment. He had proven that he was a professional. He was a valuable
asset to the organization and the Air Force.
On 11 October 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following: On or about
6 October 1995, the applicant without authority, failed to go at the time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty. After consulting counsel, the
applicant waived his right to court-martial and accepted nonjudicial
proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ. He requested to make a personal
appearance and submitted statements in his own behalf. On 17 October 1995
the commander approved the Article 15 and the following punishment was
imposed: reduction to the grade of senior airman, with a new date of rank
(DOR) of 23 October 1995. The applicant did not appeal and the Article 15
was filed in his UIF.
On 25 October 1995, the applicant was notified of his commander's intent to
impose nonjudicial punishment upon him for the following: On or about 16
October 1995, the applicant without authority, failed to go at the time
prescribed to his appointed place of duty. After consulting counsel the
applicant waived his right to court-martial and accepted nonjudicial
proceedings under Article 15 UCMJ. He requested to make a personal
appearance and submitted statements in his own behalf. On 31 October 1995,
the commander approved the Article 15 and the following punishment was
imposed: reduction to the grade of airman first class, with a new date of
rank (DOR) of 2 November 1995. The applicant did not appeal and the
Article 15 was filed in his UIF.
On 9 February 1996, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for
failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. The
LOR was filed in his UIF.
On 14 February 1996, the applicant received an LOR for failure to go at the
time prescribed to his appointed place of duty. The LOR was filed in his
UIF.
On 18 March 1996, the applicant was tried and found guilty by a General
Court-Martial for the following reasons:
Specification I: The applicant did, within the continental Unites
States on divers occasions, between on or about 6 October 1995 and on or
about 17 October 1995, wrongfully use cocaine.
Specification II: Who knew of his duties at or near Valdosta,
Georgia on divers occasions on or about 11 December 1995, was derelict in
the performance of those duties in that he willfully failed to use his
American Express Government Travel Card for official government travel
expenses only, as it was his duty to do.
Pleas & Findings of both Specifications: Guilty. The following
punishment was imposed: sentenced to a bad conduct discharge; confinement
for six months; reduction to the grade of airman basic and forfeiture of
$219.00 pay per month.
On 18 March 1996, the sentence was adjudged.
On 28 January 1997, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
findings and sentence.
On 3 June 1997, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied the
applicant’s petition for review.
On 8 July 1997, a final court-martial order was issued directing that the
bad conduct discharge be executed.
Applicant was discharged on 28 July 1997, in the grade of airman basic with
a bad conduct discharge (BCD), under the provisions of General Court-
Martial Order #43, Conviction by Court-Martial - Other Than Desertion. He
served 11 years, 2 months, and 17 days total active duty service.
EPR profile since 1989 reflects the following:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
1 Dec 89 5
1 Dec 90 5
15 Sep 91 5
15 Sep 92 5
15 Sep 93 5
11 Apr 94 5
11 Apr 95 4
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFLSA/JAJM recommended denial. They indicated that the applicant is
entitled to benefits based on his previous honorable discharges. A bad
conduct discharge accurately and aptly characterized his last term of
service. Accordingly, there is no merit to the applicant’s claim.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 15 August 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the
available evidence of record, we find no evidence to show that the
applicant’s discharge as a result of his conviction by court-martial was
erroneous or unjust. The applicant contends that at the time of his
discharge his superiors never offered him alcohol/drug addiction counseling
nor did they ask if he had a problem. His addiction led him to make wrong
choices that he wouldn’t have normally made if he were clean and sober.
However, he submits no persuasive evidence to support these contentions.
While the applicant believes his bad conduct discharge should be upgraded,
we note that the convening authority approved the bad conduct discharge and
determined that the bad conduct discharge was an appropriate consequence
that accurately described the applicant’s military service and his crimes.
In view of the foregoing we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the Military Justice Division and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of an 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-
01762 in Executive Session on 23 September 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 June 2003, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFLSA/JAJM, dated 6 August 2003.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 August 2003.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03823
The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action after reviewing the applicant’s letter of rebuttal, and reviewing his supporting documentation, there was nothing the applicant provided which dissuaded him from believing the recommendation for discharge was inappropriate. On 17 December 2002, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and by a majority vote, granted the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge to honorable and to change his narrative...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01584
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 June 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic for a period of four (4) years. As of this date, no response has been received by this office. On 23 June 2004, the Board staff requested the applicant provide post- service documentation within 14 days (Exhibit F) and on 8 July 2004, the Board provided the applicant the opportunity to respond to the FBI...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02991
On 26 February 1997, he failed to report for duty at the prescribed time of 0730. The commander indicated in his recommendation for discharge action that before recommending this discharge, the applicant was given several opportunities to improve his conduct. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 28 January 2003.
On 2 November 1995, applicant was notified of her squadron section commander's intent to recommend her for a general discharge for minor disciplinary infractions, in accordance with AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.49. The squadron section commander advised applicant of her right to consult legal counsel and submit statements in her own behalf. Copies of the letters are attached at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 1. law or regulations.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04397
His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, indicates his narrative reason for separation as Reduction in Force and his RE code as 4D. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the military personnel records, are contained in the evaluations from the Air Force offices of primary responsibility at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants...
V Air Force Review Boards Agency AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER O F : DEC 0 8 1998 DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00011 COUNSEL : HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: The Article 15s, dated 26 January 1995 and 13 February 1995, be removed from his records. The applicant claims he was exonerated and, as.a result, the Unfavorable Information File (UIF) was removed from his record but they forgot to remove the Article 15s from his record. I...
AF | DRB | CY2001 | FD01-00006
In reviewing the evidence presented, I find there exists a legally sufficient basis to warrant separating -from the Air Force. Clearly and should be discharged. d. On or about 13 October 1994, you wrote a check to the Moody AFB Exchange in the amount of about $50.00, and thereafter, failed to place or maintain sufficient knds in your account to pay this check in full upon its presentment for payment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01690
On 5 November 1987 the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his general (under honorable conditions) discharge to an honorable discharge. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 July 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02420
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02420 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge be upgraded to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. The evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03812
For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 9 February 2001. For this misconduct, he received an LOR dated 14 February 2001. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we note that in the 11 months and 2 days that the applicant was on active duty, he received 2 LOCs, 4 LORs, and an Article 15.