ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-
00987
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 2006
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His undesirable discharge be upgraded.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 26 May 2005, the AFBCMR considered and denied applicant’s
request for upgrade of his undesirable discharge. 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 H.
Subsequent to the Board, applicant submitted six letters of
character reference from acquaintances, his former pastor, and a
former landlord. His complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit I.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After careful consideration of the evidence of record and the
applicant’s most recent submission, we found no evidence that his
discharge was either erroneous or unjust. Applicant’s discharge
had its basis in his frequent involvement of a discreditable nature
with civil and military authorities, as evidenced by his illegal
operation of a two-wheeled vehicle, incidents of drunk and
disorderly conduct in public places, communicating threats and
using provoking speech, and an assault upon another airman. We
have noted the letters of character reference provided in the
applicant’s behalf. However, in view of the overall quality of the
applicant’s service, the events which precipitated his discharge,
and the contents of the FBI Report of Investigation, we are not
persuaded that an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge
is warranted on the basis of clemency. Based on the foregoing, and
in the absence of persuasive evidence that applicant’s service
warranted a better characterization than the one he received, we
are unpersuaded that a revision of our earlier determination is
warranted.
2. 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 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
00987 in Executive Session on 22 June 2005, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit H. ROP, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00987.
Exhibit I. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 05, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00987
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: By letter dated 5 May 05, applicant provided additional evidence as to why the character of his discharge should be upgraded. Only the Commanding Officer has the right and authority to restrict personnel to the base. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01785-3
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 F. On 22 Nov 04, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request to have her EPR closing 12 May 01, voided and removed from her records; and that she be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 02E5. For an accounting...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-01421-2
Even if the applicable statute and regulations required minority membership on his promotion board (which they do not), an African-American did sit as a voting member of his promotion board. The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I. AFGOMO recommends the applicant’s request be denied. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2002-04105-3
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04105 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his records reflect he was on temporary duty (TDY) to Vietnam from 1 to 17 October 1968. ...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-00986A
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G. On 12 February 1996, the deceased member’s wife submitted a letter and additional documentation requesting her deceased spouse’s records be corrected to reflect a medical retirement. The Air Force’s evaluation, in our opinion, adequately addresses the widow’s contentions concerning the member’s fitness for continued military service at the time of his separation. ...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit G. On 12 February 1996, the deceased member’s wife submitted a letter and additional documentation requesting her deceased spouse’s records be corrected to reflect a medical retirement. The Air Force’s evaluation, in our opinion, adequately addresses the widow’s contentions concerning the member’s fitness for continued military service at the time of his separation. ...
AF | BCMR | CY1991 | BC 1991 01020 5
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-1991-01020 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His bad conduct discharge (BCD) be upgraded to honorable. On 14 February 1953, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-18, Special Court-Martial Order 91, with a BCD. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03480
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03480 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 19 MARCH 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The following is the only known information pertaining...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01979
On 7 May 2006, he applied for reconsideration a second time and provided a letter from his former Deputy Commander at JSUPT recommending the applicant be given a chance to compete for JSUPT. On 10 January 2007, the Board considered the new evidence presented by the applicant and a Board majority granted his request to change his AETC Form 126A to reflect “BE CONSIDERED FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THIS COURSE AT A LATER DATE.” The Board majority did not reinstate him to JSUPT but made it possible...
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...