ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 2001-00616
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: AMERICAN LEGION
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 OCTOBER 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that his under
other than honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable or
general.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 15 December 1991, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force
Reserve with an under other than honorable conditions discharge for drug
abuse. At the time of his separation, he was credited with 19 years, 3
months and 19 days of satisfactory service.
On 30 August 2001, the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded
to honorable was considered and denied by the Board. For an accounting of
the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and,
the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit E.
On 26 February 2004, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration,
through the American Legion, contending that an Unemployment Commission
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the government did not have
adequate evidence to discharge him from the Air Force Reserve and he was
granted “UI” benefits. To support this assertion, the applicant provides
copies of ”UI Claim Notes.” The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit F.
_______________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s request, USAF/JAA reviewed the applicant’s
assertion that an ALJ ruling that the Air Force did not have adequate
evidence to discharge the applicant qualifies him for an upgrade of his
military discharge. JAA states that an ALJ does not have the
jurisdictional authority to overturn a properly executed military discharge
action. Furthermore, the ALJ’s ruling that the applicant is entitled to
unemployment benefits does not have any bearing on the merits of the
underlying administrative separation. The USAF/JAA evaluation is at
Exhibit G.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 16 June 2005, applicant responded by stating that he would like to ask
the Board to consider the equity and propriety of his discharge since he is
having difficulty obtaining civilian employment. Applicant’s letter, with
attachment is at Exhibit I.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In earlier findings, the Board determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge. After careful
reconsideration of his request and his most recent submission, we do not
find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s
earlier determination in this case. The applicant contends that the
Unemployment Commission Administrative Law Judge determined that the
government did not have adequate evidence to discharge him from the Air
Force Reserve. We are not persuaded by the evidence presented that the
applicant’s discharge by reason of misconduct was improper or contrary to
the provisions of the governing regulations. We therefore agree with the
recommendation of the Office of the Judge Advocate General and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden to provide evidence showing that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no 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 probable 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 this application in Executive
Session on 5 May 2005 and 24 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated, 30 Aug 01 w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, The American Legion, dated 26 Feb 04
w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AF/JAA, dated 13 Dec 04.
Exhibit H. Letters, AFBCMR and Applicant, dated 21 Dec 04
and 26 Jan 05.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jun 05, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1999-02923a
On 25 Oct 01, the AFBCMR was notified that in conjunction with the FY02 Air Force Reserve Line and Nonline Colonel Promotion Selection Boards, the applicant was recommended for promotion to major by the A0497A – Judge Advocate General (JAG) Major Promotion Board. On 15 Nov 01, the AFBMCR corrected the applicant’s records to show that; he was considered and selected for promotion to the Reserve grade of Major by the FY97 JAG Major Promotion Board, with a date of rank and effective date of 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2002-01061-2
By letter, dated 6 Sep 05, the applicant requests reconsideration of his appeal. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J. Exhibit M. Letter, applicant, dated 23 Dec 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00580A
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL HQ USAF/JAA EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAA reiterates that the applicant’s original debt of $50,669.90 was reduced to $25,669.90 and, to the extent that his reconsideration request was for the repayment of this validly established debt owed to the US, it should be denied. DFAS summarizes the applicant’s indebtedness and adjustments thereto as follows: $50,669.90 Original...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-00745A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00745 INDEX CODES: 131.01, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel; or, he again be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Colonel...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | Bc-2005-02009
In support of his request, he provided copies of additional documentation for the Board’s consideration to include the history of the 43RD Strategic Wing, Air Force Historical Research Agency documents, SECNAV Instruction 1650.1G, excerpts from DOD 1348.33-M and various other documents. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00203
On 15 February 2000, applicant submitted a personal letter of resignation in lieu of Discharge Review Board action (DRB) wherein he requested an honorable discharge. His rebuttal to the referral OPR, dated 25 May 2000, stated he refused the order to participate in AVIP because he considered it an illegal order as the anthrax vaccine was considered “experimental.” On 14 December 2000, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) accepted his resignation in lieu of an administrative DRB and he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00540-2
On 23 June 2004, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and denied the applicant’s request to be awarded the LOM. JAA opines that the applicant’s statement that his former commander was not impartial or was biased because the applicant was a member of the Air Force Reserves is likewise specious at best because there is no evidence to make such a conclusion. JAA concludes they do not believe the Board must reconsider the applicant’s petition based on his...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02505
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s brief, copies of the LOR, OPR, Propriety of Promotion Action, and other documents associated with the matter under review. On 7 Jan 02, the Deputy Secretary of Defense recommended the applicant’s name be removed from the FY00 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion List, indicating the applicant had refused to undergo an anthrax immunization and had advised members of the squadron to refuse their anthrax inoculations. Counsel’s complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-00404A
In a letter to her Congressman, applicant contends a federal judge ruled in Dec 03 the order to take the anthrax vaccine was illegal (Exhibit G). Additionally, we note that litigation concerning the anthrax vaccination program is still pending and that additional rulings have been made since the one referenced by the applicant that the order to take the anthrax vaccination was illegal. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1994-03165A
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 August 1995, the Board considered applicant’s request that he be reinstated on active duty in his former grade with all back pay and allowances and that he be given the opportunity for a new occupational specialty. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate and adopt...