ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00082-2
COUNSEL: TX VETERANS COMMISSION
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the reason for
his separation (Triable by Court-Martial) and his reenlistment eligibility
(RE) code of “2B” be changed; and, his under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to honorable.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge on 11 September 2000
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Triable by Court-Martial). The basis
for his discharge was due to a pattern of misconduct. Specifically,
charges were preferred against the applicant alleging he committed adultery
on multiple occasions between 15 June 1999 and 30 June 2000 and that he was
derelict in his duties by willfully failing to use a government vehicle for
official purposes only. His commander recommended the charges be referred
to trial by special court-martial. On 21 August 2000, the applicant and
his defense counsel requested a UOTHC discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial. The applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial
was approved by the discharge authority on 5 September 2000. At the time
of his separation, the applicant was serving in the grade of staff sergeant
(E-5) and was credited with a total of 13 years, 5 months and 1 day of
active duty service. He received an RE code of 2B, which defined means,
“Separated with a general or under other than honorable conditions
discharge.”
On 3 April 2001, the applicant's requests for upgrade of his discharge to
honorable, change of reason for discharge and RE code were denied by the
Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) (see Exhibit C).
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 27 August 2002.
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s separation, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.
The applicant submitted a request for reconsideration through the Texas
Veterans Commission. Counsel contends the applicant had a spotless record
prior to the incident that caused the discharge. He believes the applicant
received poor legal advice. The applicant clearly made a mistake and has
more than paid for this error in judgment. The applicant’s request for an
upgrade and change of RE code should be approved so he can again serve his
country. To support this assertion, counsel provided a personal statement
and statements from the applicant, his spouse and the pastor of his church.
Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of the appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s discharge was
erroneous or unjust. In earlier findings, the Board determined that there
was insufficient evidence to warrant corrective action regarding the
applicant’s requests. We have reviewed the applicant’s most recent
submission and find it insufficient to warrant a reversal of the Board’s
previous determination in this case. After reviewing the circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s discharge, it appears to be in compliance with
the governing AFI and we find no evidence to indicate that his separation
from the Air Force was inappropriate. With regard to the assertion that
the applicant received poor legal counsel, there is nothing in the evidence
provided, other than the unsubstantiated allegations, which would lead us
to believe that he received inadequate legal advice. In this respect, we
note the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial reveals he was aware of the adverse nature of an UOTHC discharge
and the possible consequences thereof, to include being deprived of
veteran’s benefits. We have considered the applicant’s overall quality of
service, the events which precipitated the discharge, and the evidence
related to his post-service activities and accomplishments. The
applicant’s separation was based on the circumstances which existed at the
time and resulted from his own actions. Therefore, we have no basis on
which to favorably consider the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
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 1 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00082-2.
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 11 Oct 02,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit H. DD Form 293, dated 23 Feb 05, with
attachments.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-00082-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00082-2 COUNSEL: TX VETERANS COMMISSION HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the reason for his separation (Triable by Court-Martial) and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of “2B” be changed; and, his under other than...
In his 13 years of service, he never received an Article 15 or any such reprimands. The application was timely filed. Exhibit C. AFDRB Hearing Record, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atch.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00600
After consulting with military counsel, on 14 Jan 00, the applicant requested that he be discharged from the Air Force in lieu of trial by court-martial. Applicant did not have 20 years of service at the time of his discharge. While it is regrettable that his Air Force career, given the length and character of his service, came to such an inglorious end, we do not find sufficient evidence that the actions of his chain of command to approve his discharge in lieu of court-martial were in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01216
On 19 December 2000, the discharge authority’s staff judge advocate recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and that the applicant be discharged with a UOTHC characterization of service. It is also JA’s opinion that the applicant should not be allowed to use his discharge request to halt the court-martial process established by law as the proper means to adjudicate the criminal allegations against him and now, under the guise of an...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2003-01216-2
On 1 November 2005, the Court remanded the case to the Board for reconsideration with instructions to review the Air Force records of investigation of applicant’s claim of ineffective counsel (Exhibit K) and the Discharge Review Board’s alleged findings that “an error and injustice” had occurred with regard to the applicant (Exhibit L). On 10 April 2001, an Investigating Officer (IO) was appointed by the Air Force Legal Services Agency (AFLSA) commander to examine the allegation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03903
On 25 October 1985, the Group staff judge advocate (SJA) found the case legally sufficient for discharge and recommended approval of the request with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. On 15 November 1985, the discharge authority approved the request for discharge and directed the applicant be issued a UOTHC discharge. Accordingly, they recommended his records remain the same and his request be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-00387-3
___________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 25 August 1998, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request to upgrade his BCD to honorable. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit E. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through counsel, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00341
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. DPSOS states that based on documentation on file in the master personnel records, the discharge to include the narrative reason for separation, was appropriately administered and within the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03039
On 13 Apr 98, the applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic for misconduct with a general characterization of service after 9 months and 18 days of active service. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF EVALUATION: The applicant provided a response, claiming he did not receive two separate Article 15s, that the 2 Jan 98 incident did not occur. After a thorough review...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-02752
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial. The Air Force Discharge Review Board denied the member’s request to change his Re Code on 4 October 2002. The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant chose not to address the statements made in the evaluations;...