Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03912
Original file (BC-2004-03912.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03912
            INDEX CODE:  110.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  involuntary  separation  with  an  Under  Other  Than   Honorable
Conditions (UOTHC) discharge be changed to an honorable discharge  and
he be allowed to retire.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The powers that be (his military chain of command) of his  Alaska  Air
National Guard (AKANG) unit, and others,  all  conspired  to  end  his
career.  They disregarded an Alaska Superior Court Judge’s arrangement
to have him do his jail time in the North Star housing  program  which
would have allowed him to attend work and be present for duty on  Unit
Training Assemblies (UTA’s  –  Drills).   His  was  a  first  criminal
offense and had no connection to his military service  at  all.   They
did not genuinely concern themselves with consideration of his  family
and last but not least, they gave no consideration to the fact he  had
served 19 years, 8 months, and 20 days of  satisfactory  service.   He
further states there were several individuals in  his  unit  that  had
broken the law in numerous ways but were either  allowed  to  continue
their service or retire.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement, a letter from counsel to his commander, pertinent copies of
his legal paperwork, and copies of his DD  Form  214,  Certificate  of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a point credit summary, letters
from applicant to his commander and from his spouse to his commander.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant, a former member of the AKANG, enlisted in the  Regular  Air
Force on 1 February 1980.  He enlisted in the AKANG on 20 January 1993
where he served six satisfactory years of service.  During 1999 he was
convicted by the Alaska Superior Court  of  committing  felony  Sexual
Abuse of a Minor  III.   On  19 January  1999,  he  was  involuntarily
separated from the AKANG with an UOTHC discharge after  having  served
19 years, 8 months, and 20  days  of  satisfactory  service.   He  was
discharged in the grade of senior airman.  On 23  July  1999,  he  was
ordered by the court to report to custody on 1 September 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1POF recommends denial.  A1POF states  he  was  discharged  after
administration of an AKANG Administrative Discharge Board (ADB) for  a
civil conviction of sexual abuse of a minor in the second degree.  The
severity of this charge warranted immediate administrative  action  as
this type  of  behavior  is  not  considered  conducive  to  continued
military affiliation.  A1POF notes his interpretation of  the  act  as
insignificant  further  confirms  his  unsuitability   for   continued
military service.

A1POF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
10 March 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we  are  not  persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of a conspiracy  by  his  chain  of
command to end his career or the opportunity of other airmen to retire
or continue serving after having broken the law, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
National  Guard.   Therefore,  we   agree   with   the   opinion   and
recommendation  of  the  Air  National   Guard   office   of   primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having
suffered either an error or injustice.  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-
2004-03912 in Executive Session on 1 August 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
      Ms. Donna D. Jonkoff, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 7 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Mar 06.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03582

    Original file (BC-2005-03582.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant agrees with the ANG that his discharge was handled with all applicable regulations, however, the WYANG acted on “bad” information provided by his doctor. He contends he was too young at the age of 38 to have contracted a bipolar disorder and instead asserts he suffered from a “situation” disorder based on many personal changes...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01951

    Original file (BC-2005-01951.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) also committed a clerical error claiming he had received $525 from an AFROTC scholarship from 1 April 1998 to 15 July 1998. He did receive a copy of the order releasing him from the Air Force Reserves as it was provided as his evidence; therefore, he was fully aware of the SGLI charges. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00586

    Original file (BC-2006-00586.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He checked back in September and was told the FY05 guidance had been received and his reenlistment bonus would not increase. As he was improperly advised on the amount of the bonus and the timing of his reenlistment, he requests his contract be re-accomplished under the FY05 ANG Incentive Program and he be awarded the additional $10,000 he would have received had he waited to reenlist. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03525

    Original file (BC-2005-03525.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additionally, he was activated post 9-11 from December 2001 to December 2002 and was not offered participation in the MGIB, nor was he briefed as to any other available benefits like the “CH 1607.” Lastly, when he was hired as an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) on 1 February 2003, he was not offered the chance to participate in the MGIB program. He visited the base education office and they had no information on the conversion option to the MGIB program. After a thorough review of the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | bc-2007-00522

    Original file (bc-2007-00522.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He completed 22 years and 21 days of honorable military service. In order to be eligible for Reserve retired pay under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code (10 USC), Section 12731, a member must complete 20 years of satisfactory service. However, as of this date, no response has been received by this office.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00746

    Original file (BC-2006-00746.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Prior to being released on 26 June 2004, he requested additional orders so he may remain on active duty until the MEB had heard his case and made a final decision on it. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was not released from active duty with the Air National Guard on 21 January 2006, but was continued on active duty...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-02972

    Original file (BC-2006-02972.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, he can resubmit his application with specific documentation supporting his request and provide his current contact information. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief. We therefore 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 failed to sustain his burden...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03810

    Original file (BC-2005-03810.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 100.03 BC-2005-03810 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: 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 the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02123

    Original file (BC-2005-02123.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While on active duty with the Regular Air Force, he was promoted to captain and given a promotion line number based on 17 August 1992. Further, if his request to change his DOR was ultimately to entitle him to meet the FY07 ANG mandatory promotion board, then his current DOR to major of 6 February 2000 meets the time in grade requirements and qualifies him to meet the FY07 ANG mandatory board. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01700

    Original file (BC-2007-01700.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Members of the Board Mr. John B. Hennessey, Ms. Dee R. Reardon, and Mr. Jeffrey R. Shelton considered this application on 16 October 2007. JOHN B. HENNESSEY Panel Chair Attachment Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 20 Sep 07 AFBCMR BC-2007-01700 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for...