Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03557
Original file (BC-2003-03557.doc) Auto-classification: Denied





                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03557
            INDEX CODE:  110.03

            COUNSEL:  JAMES ADAMS, JR.

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to  one  that  would
enable him to reenlist.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 7 January 1999 he was married while in the process of  transferring
between duty stations: Kunsan Air Base (AB), South Korea, to Hill  Air
Force Base (AFB), Utah.  His new wife was pregnant.  Four hours  after
he was wed, he left for Hill AFB with the promise he would return  for
his wife in February 1999 after he  was  settled  into  his  new  duty
station.  His wife’s parents visited their daughter  and  demanded  an
answer for what he and his new wife had  done.   In  March  1999,  his
wife’s parents moved her to Idaho in an attempt to hide her from  him.
During this time, he made contact with  her  and  found  out  she  had
miscarried their baby.  In April  1999,  he  was  involved  in  a  car
accident on the way to Idaho to  pick  up  his  wife  and  suffered  a
herniated disk in his back for which he was hospitalized.  Her parents
found out about his attempt to retrieve their daughter and  moved  her
to California.  Shortly after, in May 1999, his wife returned  to  her
parent’s home in  Mt.  Vernon,  Washington.   He  left  Hill  AFB  for
Washington on 10 May 1999, spoke with his wife, was convinced  by  her
that the marriage was over, and returned to Hill AFB to face  whatever
punishment awaited him there.

On 4 May 1999, he was ordered to participate in  a  random  urinalysis
drug test.  He signed the acknowledgment  form  that  morning  at  his
orderly room where he was ordering  Career  Development  Course  (CDC)
materials.  He was radioed to return  to  work,  which  he  did.   All
attempts to get a ride  to  the  Demand  Reduction  Facility  for  his
urinalysis  test  after   returning   to   work   were   unsuccessful.
Consequently, he went, with his supervisor, to the base hospital where
he provided a sample that tested negative.  On 10 May  1999,  he  left
his  duty  station  without  permission  to  travel  to  Mt.   Vernon,
Washington, to confront his wife.  On 11 June 1999, he turned  himself
in to security forces at McChord AFB, Washington  and  was  put  on  a
plane back to Hill AFB.  He subsequently pleaded guilty for Failure to
Go (urinalysis testing) and for being  Absent  Without  Leave  (AWOL),
from 10 May through 10 June 1999.  He was convicted of both and  given
a choice of a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or  confinement.   He  chose
the BCD and was subsequently discharged with a BCD after reduction  to
the lowest enlisted grade.

He argues since he was restricted to the base (Hill AFB), that he  was
unable, at the time, to gather any pertinent documents that  may  have
helped him defend himself.  He feels he now has more understanding and
maturity and that he could be an asset to  the  military.   His  first
three and one half years of service were honorable and he participated
in the Honor Guard, volunteered for community service, and other  base
functions, and earned the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM).  Since
his discharge, he has been an asset to his community  by  volunteering
in several areas and has earned his Associates degree.  He  asks  that
he be able to serve in the AF again, but if not then asks  for  an  RE
Code that would enable him to serve in one of the other services.   He
understands a “corrected” RE code will not  guarantee  his  acceptance
into any branch of the military service.  He has kept  himself  within
AF standards, physically, mentally and morally.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  personal
statements from himself and his wife,  letters  of  support  from  his
current and past employers, copies of information regarding  RE  codes
from the Air Force Personnel Center’s (AFPC’s) web site, a copy of the
Letter of Restriction (LOR) from his commander at Hill AFB, a copy  of
his package to the Discharge Review Board, a portion of  his  military
training record, copies  of  various  letters  of  appreciation,  work
schedules, and certificates related to his volunteerism, copies of his
higher education work and diploma’s, a copy of his travel  order  from
Kunsan AB to Hill AFB, copies of Enlisted Performance Reports  (EPR’s)
for the period 6 September 1996 through 7 May 1999, copies of civilian
performance  appraisals,  stock  ownership  certificates,  a  marriage
certificate, a police record check  dated  21  January  2003  from  Mt
Vernon, WA, and copies of college transcripts.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant entered Regular Active Duty on 17 April 1996.   He  attained
the rank of senior airman (SRA/E-4) with a date of rank  of  17  April
1999.  On 22 July 1999, he was demoted to the  lowest  enlisted  grade
available: Airman Basic  (E-1)  and  discharged  with  a  Bad  Conduct
Discharge (BCD) effective 9 November 2000 pursuant to  his  conviction
for being AWOL  and  for  Failure  to  Go.   On  23 January  2003,  he
testified before  a  Discharge  Review  Board  (DRB)  that  found  the
discharge  to  be  consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive
requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),  but  the
punishment given for the offenses was simply too harsh.  The  DRB  did
not think the crimes so serious as to justify  a  BCD  and  therefore,
granted clemency in the  form  of  his  discharge  being  upgraded  to
general (under honorable conditions).  He was discharged  with  an  RE
code of  “2B”,  Discharged  under  General  under-other-than-honorable
conditions.
_________________________________________________________________

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  an  error  or  injustice.   Evidence  has  not  been
provided in support of his appeal that would lead us to believe that a
change to his RE code is warranted.  We  took  note  of  his  complete
submission in judging the merits of this case and while we support the
Discharge Review Board’s act of clemency in upgrading  his  discharge,
we are not persuaded he has suffered  either  an  error  or  injustice
regarding the RE code he received for  his  conduct  while  on  active
duty.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  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  issue(s)   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-
2003-03557  in  Executive  Session  on  6  January  2004,  under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, Member
      Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.



                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0028

    Original file (FD2002-0028.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant received a Bad Conduct Discharge, a punitive discharge, as part of his sentence resulting from a Special Court-Martial conviction. Attachment: Examiner's Brief DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD FD2002-0028 (Former AB) (HGH Unknown) 1. Plea: G. Finding: G. Specification: Did, at or near Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, from on or about 20 y, of a value of about September 1997 to on or about 10 October 19 $2,600.00, the property of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0263

    Original file (FD2002-0263.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD02-0263 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Further, he recalled several commanders’ complaints of unprofessional behavior were traced to respondent. (3) Also entered into evidence were two AF Forms 174, Record of Counseling, regarding her unprofessional behavior during a SAV and over the telephone and her negative attitude (Gov Ex 15, 42, respectively).

  • AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2003-00198

    Original file (FD2003-00198.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    T WEST, SUITE 40 AFB, TX 78150-4742 SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR. EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 I AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 I (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used I 1 I I AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00198 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable, to change the reason and authority for the discharge, and to change the reenlistment code. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01244

    Original file (BC-2003-01244.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His wife and son remained hospitalized until 20 September 2002 and the applicant was ordered to return to Malstrom AFB on 21 September 2002. Consequently, the applicant could have been authorized PTDY for the period that his wife was hospitalized: 4 through 15 July 2002. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-01244 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003044

    Original file (0003044.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 128.02 AFBCMR 00-03044 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801127

    Original file (9801127.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01127 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be changed to a general (under honorable conditions) discharge. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. RITA S. LOONEY Panel Chair 15 SEP 1998 MEMORANDUMFORAFBCMR FROM: AFLSA/JAJM 112 Luke...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002772

    Original file (0002772.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She indicated on her DD Form 1299, Application for Shipment and/or Storage of Personal Property, that her shipment would contain professional items. In support of her request applicant provided a memorandum from the Quality Assurance office; her excess cost rebuttal adjudication letter; DD Forms 139, Pay Adjustment Authorization; DD Form 1299; AF Form 767, Extended Active Duty Order; and, Notification of Indebtedness letter. ...

  • AF | DRB | CY2006 | FD2005-00478

    Original file (FD2005-00478.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    For this misconduct you received a Letter of Counseling (LOC) on 28 Mar 96. b. For this misconduct you received an Article 15 on 2 Jul96 which included a suspended reduction to airman basic, forfeiture of $100.00 pay for one month, and seven days correctional custody, This Article 15 was placed in your existing UIF. For this misconduct you received an Article 15 on 17 Apr 97 which included reduction to the grade of airman, with a new date of rank of 17 Apr 97 and restriction to Malmstrorn...

  • AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00169

    Original file (FD2004-00169.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DATE: 8/24/2004 -- SECRETARY O F THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1.535 CObrnlAND DR, EE WING, 3 R D FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, nm 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2004-00169 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The DRB noted that when the applicant applied for these benefits, he signed a statement (DD Form 2366, on December...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02525

    Original file (BC 2013 02525.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02525 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code be changed from “2X” (First-term, second- term, or career airman considered but not selected for reenlistment under the Selective Reenlistment Program (SRP)) to one that will allow him to enlist into another service. He was...