Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00411
Original file (BC-2005-00411.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00411
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 AUG 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her records be corrected  to  show  that  she  graduated  from  Security
Forces training.

2.  Her narrative reason for discharge be changed.

3.  Her grade be changed to reflect E-3.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She graduated from the Security Forces Academy in March 2000.   She  has  no
documents to prove that she graduated, only her badge.

Applicant makes no contentions regarding her pay  grade  and  the  narrative
reason for her discharge.

In support of her request, she provided a personal statement.  Her  complete
submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  13
Oct 99 in the grade of airman  basic.   She  entered  into  Security  Forces
technical training on 29 Nov 99.  On 11 May 00,  she  was  notified  by  her
commander that he was recommending she be  discharged  from  the  Air  Force
under the provisions of AFI 36-3208,  Administrative  Separation  of  Airmen
(Homosexual Acts).  The  basis  for  his  recommendation  was  an  Inspector
General (IG) investigation determined that at various times between  October
1999 and January 2000, she engaged in homosexual conduct.   A  copy  of  the
investigative report is appended at Exhibit  F.   She  was  advised  of  her
rights  in  this  matter  and  after  consulting  counsel,  she  offered   a
conditional waiver of her rights contingent upon receipt of no less than  an
honorable discharge.  The base staff judge advocate found her  case  legally
sufficient and  recommended  acceptance  of  the  conditional  waiver.   The
discharge authority  approved  her  separation  and  directed  that  she  be
discharged   with   an   honorable   discharge   without    probation    and
rehabilitation.  She was discharged on 17 Aug 00.  She served 10 months  and
5 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states individuals  enlisting  for  a
period of six  years  are  promoted  upon  completion  of  either  technical
training or 20 weeks of technical  training,  whichever  occurs  first,  and
recommended for promotion by the immediate commander.  No documentation  was
found to verify she completed the  Security  Specialist  course.   There  is
also  no  written  recommendation  from  her  commander  for  promotion   or
promotion  order  indicating  advancement  to  the  grade  of  A1C.   DPPPWB
therefore assumes she  was  not  recommended  for  promotion  based  on  the
findings  of  her  investigation  and  subsequent  discharge.   The   DPPPWB
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states that the  applicant's  discharge
was consistent with the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements  of  the
discharge  regulation  and  was  within  the  discretion  of  the  discharge
authority.  She did not submit any new evidence or identify  any  errors  in
the discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the  applicant  on  18
Mar 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or  injustice  that  would  warrant  an  upgrade  to  her
narrative  reason  for  separation.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case;  however,  after
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record we find no evidence of an  error
in this case and are not persuaded that  she  has  been  the  victim  of  an
injustice.  With respect to her request that her  records  be  corrected  to
show she completed Security Forces training  and  she  be  promoted  to  the
grade of E-3, we find no evidence, other than her own assertions,  that  she
completed  Security  Forces   training   and   satisfied   her   contractual
requirements for promotion to the grade of E-3.  Therefore,  we  agree  with
the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  offices  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.   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-2005-
00411 in Executive Session on 25 May 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 3 Mar 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 11 Mar 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Mar 05.
    Exhibit F.  IG Investigative Report - WITHDRAWN


                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03122

    Original file (BC-2004-03122.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the applicant’s request to correct her rank on her DD Form 214 be denied. Based on the above finding, and in the absence of evidence of a formal military investigation, we also believe her records should be corrected to show that she was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2004. Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000208

    Original file (0000208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00208 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her nonselection for reenlistment and the Unfavorable Information(UIF)/Control Roster actions be rescinded; she be promoted, with all back pay; and she be awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM. DPPAE indicated that a review of the applicant's military personnel records revealed she was nonselected for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03432

    Original file (BC-2004-03432.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 12 Apr 00, applicant submitted a request for separation from the Air Force. However, since we believe it is unlikely that the applicant would have received Article 15 punishment for the failure to go specification, it is our opinion that the entire Article 15 action should be removed from her records and she be restored to the grade of staff sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00055

    Original file (BC-2004-00055.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00055 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), rendered for the period 6 April 2001 through 21 December 2001, is declared void and removed from his records. The HQ AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB states...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03434

    Original file (BC-2005-03434.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    MSgt K---, a member of his AFS (4Y0X0), was attending the First Sergeant Academy and her record was scored in the 4Y0X0 career field. Each individual's record was corrected, they were provided supplemental promotion consideration, and not selected for promotion in the 8F000 CAFSC. Therefore, the CAFSC effective date would be the date assigned duty--11 Nov 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02099

    Original file (BC-2002-02099.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In a rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, applicant now requests that she be reinstated to active duty in the Air Force, promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) and allowed to cross train into the Paralegal career field she was approved for prior to her discharge. The applicant’s complete statement is at Exhibit L. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE recommends that the applicant’s RE code be changed to “3K,”...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01793

    Original file (BC-2002-01793.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The patrolman reported that the applicant stated that he was not going to be handcuffed and he grabbed the patrolman’s arm. He also stated that the witnesses’ statement was not true. He contends that out of three alcohol incidents under the same commander, only the African Americans were punished.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716

    Original file (BC-2006-01716.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811

    Original file (BC-2005-02811.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00011

    Original file (BC-2002-00011.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00011 INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her pay records be corrected to show that on 1 Sep 99 she was authorized payment of $1,395.92 and that she was relieved of her indebtedness. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...