RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01054
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be
upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He served honorably and with dignity. He was promoted to Technical
Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) under the deserving airman promotion program.
When his country called, he didn’t question, he went. What happened
in his personal life, catching his wife having an affair with a
Catholic priest, on his return from Desert Storm did not cause him to
do anything that would do harm to the Air Force Reserves.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, copies of his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report
of Separation and Record of Service, his order calling him to
involuntary active duty in support of Desert Storm, and a copy of a DD
Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, detailing his service
with the US Marine Corps.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant joined the Illinois Air National Guard (IL ANG) on
17 January 1985. On 15 June 1995 he was discharged with an Under
Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge as a result of a
civilian conviction and subsequent incarceration. At discharge, he
had served 19 years, 4 months, and 29 days of combined active and
Reserve component service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPP recommends denial. DPP states the IL ANG Judge Advocate found
the discharge based on civil conviction to be legally sufficient. DPP
also notes the applicant’s NGB Form 22, item 24, is missing the term
“Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC).” The IL ANG has been
directed to make the correction to his NGB Form 22.
DPP’s 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 9
January 2004 for review and comment 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 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 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. The applicant may, in the future, appeal for
clemency in upgrading his discharge after he has had time to
reestablish himself and become a positive force in his community.
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01054 in Executive Session on 2 March 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPP, dated 6 Jan 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03701
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03701 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to show a favorable discharge and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and to either be compensated monetarily or be credited for 20 years of service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00343
Second, he is concerned the Board might consider not granting his request to correct the known errors on the SF-50B as the Board may only correct military records - not civilian records. Based on the evidence of record, had the applicant not been separated, he would have continued to serve in the Air National Guard (ANG). We note applicant’s request that he be promoted to lieutenant colonel three years from the date of the Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01102
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant submits a supporting letter from his commander who indicates he considers the applicant’s service to be invaluable as an instructor for the Air Force’s Logistics Training Center. The commander advises that his squadron is currently undermanned and by losing the applicant it will provide him with an operational deficiency in implementing Air Force training. Exhibit D....
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02306
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should still be eligible for his ACP since he transferred to a full time position with the Air National Guard (ANG) and will be performing the same duties that qualified him for ACP on active duty. They point out that paragraph 2.2, “Recoupment,” states officers will be advised that if the SecAF approves their request for release from active duty or accepts their resignations, they may be subject...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00080 INDEX NUMBER: 128.10 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The debt of $21, 527.78 he incurred for recoupment of Aviator Continuation Pay (ACP) be voided, deleted from his records, and all amounts previously paid toward this debt be refunded to him. We took notice of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00275
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00275 INDEX CODE: 137.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) election, made on 23 July 1986, be changed from full SBP coverage to cover the period between December 1997 and 28 October 2003 only. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-00079 INDEX CODE 102.08 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with active duty service towards retirement for time spent in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachment, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03325
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 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. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The former member had completed but did not submit a retirement benefits application. DPP states that to apply for Reserve retired pay, a member must complete an ARPC Form 0-69, Application for Retired Pay, and submit the form to the ARPC for processing. The DPP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00691
_________________________________________________________________ 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...